User talk:Balloonman/archive 25

TPM

Hi Balloonman,

There's been a bit of back and forth on Tea Party movement talk over this edit [1] and I was wondering, would you please comment. The beginning paragraphs of the edit are the concern as they are drawn from op-eds, etc. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at it later this evening... I had taken the Tea Party articles off my watch list because the back and forth gets old fast.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Malke 2010 (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Balloonman, could really use your help over on Tea Party movement. This editor, Willbeback, has been ignoring the talk page discussions and inserting OR, and removing stable edits with reliable sources, and nearly blanked a section. I'm sure he's past 3rr by now. Please help in the talk page. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the very helpful comments on the various disputes at TPM. --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks so much. Also, I've posted a comment for you on the TPM talk page under "Balloonman chimes in again." Malke 2010 (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Admin

Hi Balloonman,

I know you very thoroughly review RfA candidates...and I noticed your comments about what you consider an admin to be, and that you believe Elen of the Roads should already be recognized as an admin. Our paths have crossed on a few occasions, and I was wondering if you consider me to be an admin as well. This is just for curiosity's sake; I am not currently considering an RfA candidacy. Thanks, Keepscases (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, our paths haven't crossed enough outside of WT:RFA/WP:RFA for me to say one way or another. (I may have you confused with somebody else, but I believe it was you, but if it wasn't I apologize in advance. And if I do remember correctly, this is not intended as an attack or criticism to be harsh, but rather honest feedback.)

If I remember correctly, one thing that you would have to overcome, if you were to run for Admin would be some lingering concerns related towards you view on UserBoxes. If I'm not mistaken, you used to be very adamant about what you perceived to be anti-Christian/Anti-God/Athiestic/Agnostic user boxes. While I haven't seen you oppose on that groun in a while (but I haven't been paying as close of attention to RfA's lately) the passion behind those opposes might raise some concerns with people. Namely could you be neutral/objective when it comes to issues related to God/Christianity.

Now it is entirely possible that you are and have been. You may have developed a solid history in that regards over the past two years or so. But people who know you primarily through RfA (such as myself) would have to be convinced that those passions have been tempered over the years.

Which means, if you do decide to run, confront that concern head on. Admit it, own it, and then show how you've changed and show us that you can be neutral/objective om those areas. If the opposes are from a year plus and you've "reformed", then it won't be impossible to convince people that your wikiperspective has changed. (Having passions like that is fine in the real world, but if you want to be an admin, the ideal is to have somebody who can separate his/her personal feelings from is issue.)

Again, if I remember incorrectly, my apologies. If I am remembering correctly, the above is not meant to be an attack, but rather an honest appraisal of an issue that might be an obstacle.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input!

I would argue that my passion is (was?) less about Christianity v. Atheism and more about underlying attitudes, but there is no need for that debate until if and when an RfA surfaces  :) Keepscases (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Just remember, we can have feelings, but when running for admin, people want to know that you can reign those emotions in. I also recall that you were the first to fling allegations of pedophilia at Herostraus (sp) in his recall rfa. That might hurt as well, just because people work in an area doesn't always mean that they embrace the topic. I've found myself working areas thinking, "why am I here?"---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

After being on the receiving end of Herostratus's detective work in unmasking my "Malleus" sockpuppet I'm hardly an unbiased judge, but you're being a little hard on Keeps there. Herostratus is, after all, the one who made this plea for Wikipedia to encourage pedophiles to edit, on the grounds that "people who are pedophiles in the girllover/boylover sense (I'm still not clear, myself, on the overlap) are likely to have lots of hard-to-get information on that area", and who had That Userpage. – iridescent 21:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

@Keepscases: It might be hard for you to become an admin if you continue to ask those silly RfA questions. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 22:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Although with more answers like Elen's, it might be worth it.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Advice

I'm in two minds. One half of me thinks this thing with Wehwalt must be a massive misunderstanding, because I never said any of the things he says I did. The other half of me, rather uncharitably, is putting it down to Malleus !voting for me, and thinks it doesn't matter what I say, the accusations are related to who my friends are perceived to be, rather than anything I said. Which is ironic, given that I don't think I've exchanged more than half a dozen edits with Malleus, and I thought he'd never forgiven me over Ottava Rima. Should I just leave things as they are, do you think.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Couple of things have happened (see my talkpage and the RfA). I am now of the opinion that leaving things be is the best course. I'll just wait and see how things go.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Candidate article deletes

Thanks for your excellent comments. The same thing happened just before the 2008 elections too, and imo that's one reason why we don't have as many volunteers this time around. I posted my 'guideline' much earlier when some of those actually involved in the election and candidate articles were discussing these issues. See [United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2010]], Districts 12 and 13, for an example of each of these:

• 'No-hopers' get their campaign site and Project Vote Smart link included in parentheses after their name in the election article.
• Those notable for only the election (the "iffys") can have more info included and we redirect their name (if we remember!) (Scott Harper example in District 13)
• Those currently in some state or national office get their own article anyway, so we just wikify their name.

We also had some we left as separate articles because they were long articles AND they were likely enough to win, but if they didn't win they were only notable for the election - so we marked them with the Merge tags we wouldn't forget about them after the election. I think that was working pretty well, but now we have the partisans jumping in and deleting everything in sight. That's scary. Flatterworld (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC) We also had some we left as separate articles because they were long articles AND they were likely enough to win, but if they didn't win they were only notable for the election - so we marked them with the Merge tags we wouldn't forget about them after the election. I think that was working pretty well, but now we have the partisans jumping in and deleting everything in sight. Flatterworld (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC) + We also had some we left as separate articles because they were long articles AND they were likely enough to win, but if they didn't win they were only notable for the election - so we marked them with the Merge tags we wouldn't forget about them after the election. I think that was working pretty well, but now we have the partisans jumping in and deleting everything in sight. That's scary. Flatterworld (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion I would make would be to dig up some of those AFD's which were nominated in the last week before the election. If you can show:

• A fair number of articles were nominated that last week
• By a large number of fly-by individuals
• That BLP Vios occured within them
• That some of the results were trending to delete or were deleted despite being kept.

THEN you will have a stronger case. As is, I don't think this will garner enough steam to pass. One of the issues that you need to prove, is that this is a legit concern. (I just looked at the AFD log for the past two or three days, and honestly, as of this point in time, it looks like this might be a solution looking for a problem---which is going to become an rallying point for those who oppose it---especially if any read this post ;-) So you need to show that it is in fact an issue that we need a preventative for.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

They are not AfDs, they're just being deleted/redirected. I only found the examples by accident, as I clicked on a 'blue link' and found I was being redirected. I am working on all elections in all states - do you have any idea how much time that takes? Somehow, in the one week remaining, I really doubt I can recheck every single one of those on a daily basis, while continuing to update them with new material. I really wish Wikipedia had people interested in these articles for some reason other than deleting them a week before the election, but I guess that's something for the NYT and various bloggers to report on. And I'm sure they will. Flatterworld (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

NPA

I'm sure you must be familiar with WP:NPA by now, so let this serve as a warning to comment on content, not on contributors. You have been repeatedly assuming bad faith on the ANI thread, and comments such as "It should be noted that anybody who !votes in one of his Pointy AFDs..." are not acceptable, and leaving a reply to a well-justified AfD at Douglas Herbert claiming that it is a bad-faith nomination claiming that it is a bad-faith nomination isn't acceptable either. If you can address the concerns raised based on policy, feel free to do so, and in the meantime start assuming good faith and stop attacking other editors. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I consider it to be a bad faith nom. It is being nominated for the sole point of making a wp:POINT. Oh yeah, that is not a personal attack.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If you read the rationale it would be very clear that's not the reason. You will also notice that the same user was in favour of redirecting the article before this discussion came about. Accusing those who disagree with you of acting disruptively doesn't cut it; see "Ad Hominem". (edit conflict) Making unfounded accusations that others are acting in bad-faith, especially generalising by referring to the user's actions as a whole, is a personal attack, and if you continue you may well end up blocked. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's become pretty clear, whether you've had previous association with the articles or not, that you have a conflict of interest here (what with the blanket accusations earlier that the community will delete the articles for political reasons). I suggest having a flick over WP:NPA, a look at the image above on how to make a solid argument, and make constructive arguments rather than simply attacking other editors by declaring all of their contributions to be in bad faith; doing so is only going to reflect poorly on yourself. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

OMG, you honestly think, "It should be noted that anybody who !votes in one of his Pointy AFDs should do so from the perspective of not whether or not the article meets notability today, but rather will it when the time comes to delete it?" is a personal attack? No, it is guidance. He opened these AfD's to prove a point (he announced it on the page that he was sending up balloons---admission of making a point.) As for "It should be noted that anybody who !votes in one his Pointy AFDs"... that is guidance to whomever chooses to participate. It is not by ANY stretch of the imagination an ad homimen attack.

I'm not going to continue this discussion; my note here was a friendly warning for your own benefit. If you choose to disregard it then so be it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Too bad you didn't come close to convincing me... I saw no credibility that my comment was an attack. (Tarc admited that he was sending up trail balloons and chose to do so during an ANI discussion, chose to announce that he was doing so during the ANI discussion, and chose to post that he was doing so because of the ANI discussion---that is the epitome of POINT. And a reminder to those who !vote in his admitedly POINTY AFD's is not a personal attack on them.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• ...and thus ends my assumption of good faith. Carry on. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • LMFAO---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Another election-related issue

I posted this on the Freeze thread, but it probably will get lost with all the other comments:

• And now I've found a sort of 'reverse issue'. I just updated United States House of Representatives elections in South Carolina, 2010#District 5, wikifying Mick Mulvaney's name. So look at his article - as in, who worked on it after the article included that he was running for US Rep. User:Orangemike (see above). He made plenty of edits, but it never, ever occurred to him to link to the actual election article? Or include any of the usual non-partisan voter links (for which there's a handy-dandy template created years ago to save me the work of entering each separately)? Really? All we have here is the equivalent of 'spider food' - anyone googling the guy's name would go here, and only here. The links on the election page? They'd never find them. And User:Jerzeykydd worked on that article as well - he's blocked until after the election for reverting edits to add third-party candidates to election article infoboxes, but my argument with him was about his creation of tons of articles for Republican candidates, NONE of which had the usual non-partisan voter information, just a five-second cut-and-paste from the campaign website. (I fixed a lot of them, until I realized he could create them a lot faster than I could fix them.) He added the '2010 run for U.S. Congress' section in the body of the article about the election (it was already in the lede) and - how odd! - there's a blank line where the 'See also' link template would normally go. Circumstantial 'evidence' for sure, but he's another 'experienced Wikipedian' who's well aware of the election articles. Do we have people playing games here? Definitely. I'm just pointing them out.

Obviously I've now updated both the election and the candidate article, but I don't know how many more like that are out there. Flatterworld (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

As an FYI, you would be better served taking issues like this directly to the thread at ANI, thereby maintaining the appearance of not canvassing. After posting it there, I might chime in.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

remark on the candidate article business and WP:POLITICIAN

The last time WP:POLITICIAN was discussed, I raised many of the same points you are making. If you should propose a change to that guideline following the election, you'll find me fairly sympathetic. NOTPAPER and all of that. One thing I hold more important, however: as far as maintaining neutrality goes, we need to be consistent across our treatment of campaign biographies. The current version of WP:POLITICIAN has been in place since February, and radically changing course the last week before the election is not what I would consider to be a good idea - dozens, if not hundreds, of biographies have been redirected or deleted based on that guideline. Ray^Talk 06:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I wouldn't make the proposal now, I just think it is dumb to nominate articles at this point. In reality, any senatorial/representative/governor candidate from one of the major parties will have coverage.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Gah. My brain must be off. I both knew it was a week before the election, and it didn't register when I commented. I shouldn't have commented in the seriously contested races, not when a week will tell. We may have different opinions on what constitutes significant, non-trivial news coverage of a candidate and race, but ... we can save that discussion for after the election. Ray^Talk 06:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. That and combined with the fact that there was an ongoing discussion at ANI is why Tarc received the criticism he did. Tarc came into the ANI discussion and announced that he was going to send up "balloons", basically forcing the issue---that is why people are criticizing him. NOT because he nominated the articles. OrangeMike has also nominated articles, but nobody has challenged OM's motives. Hell, if Tarc had waited a few hours and not made his challenge, nobody would have called his motives into question. In all honesty, in a week, I would not be defending the candidates. But right now, we are getting a slew of these "AFD's" in the final week, wherein having an AFD tag on a candidates article might be seen as "partisan" or negative. Would you want an AFD tag on your article challenging your notability the week before a major election? Isn't that what BLP would be all about? Why the rush to have numerous AFD's THIS week? Why not two weeks ago? Why not wait a week?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think ... an AFD tag on an article the week before an election, is not likely to be more dangerous than any one of a dozen other cleanup tags (neutrality, spamminess, COI, notability, etc), which would be much messier to forbid. The discussion on drive-by taggings, especially on BLPs, is a much bigger and more complicated one. Given that, I don't see a reason to disrupt AfD processes in general by imposing a moratorium. I do think an AfD on a candidate in a closely contested election is a waste of time, but how to define a contested election ... well, that's another can of worms. I know one when I see one, but ... As far Tarc, I think ... to accuse him of bad faith is off the mark, because he plainly means and believes what he says, and acts accordingly. To accuse him of being pointy and disruptive might be closer, but his actions are in line with current deletion procedure. To criticize him for having a provocative and battleground mentality in this case is ... accurate, to my mind. Anyhow, I'm signing off. G'night. Ray^Talk 06:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If you are motivated to be pointy/disruptive with a battleground mentality, you are, IMO, by definition acting in bad faith.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I asked for clarification here from the Admin who closed the discussion but failed to address important and relevant points and questions. After numerous elections, I think all Wikipedians deserve to have and know the actual guidelines and rules which are being used. As I haven't created any articles for any less-than-competitive candidates (although I've spent plenty of hours helping those who have when I couldn't convince them to merge them into the election articles), I have no particular dog in this fight. imo the playing field here may be flat, but it certainly isn't level. Flatterworld (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Balloonman: I saw your comments stating that there should be further discussion regarding WP:POLITICIAN after the mid-terms and I, too, would be interested in being part of that discussion. In one of the Afd discussions, I saw that you wrote that the current guidelines favor the incumbent. I didn't want to reply there, but I would point out that Wikipedia is about featuring subjects that are notable, not giving equal time to all political candidates. Although there will be those who state revised guidelines would be unfair or unfavorable to independent candidates, I am sympathetic to the argument that all major party candidates in major elections are notable. There will also need to be some discussion given to reconciling the guidelines with various points in WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E, and WP:EVENT. Cheers! Location (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but Location seems to be missing the point here. National elections are indeed notable, and therefore so are the candidates associated with them (particularly after the primaries when we know who's on the ballot). The point of a Merge is to actually merge the material about a candidate not notable for anything other than the event into the election article, and then redirecting the candidate article there. That is not the same as skipping the first half and only doing the second, which is the problem with what Tarc was doing last week (followed by his subsequent string of AfDs). Again, see Scott Harper. Why does everyone keep changing the argument into a straw man argument? Is the definition of 'merge' that unclear? (Balloonman, feel free to delete this if you wish.) Flatterworld (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Just added a couple of links to Ballotpedia articles to West Virginia elections, 2010 (for the state senate and house of delegates races we provide no information about). Perhaps post-election we can discuss the possibility of referencing Ballotpedia and similar for whatever Wikipedia doesn't want to cover. Not a perfect solution, but at least it would help people trying to find information. Flatterworld (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Just got back from a business trip/visit to parents... but yes, it would be "unfair" to independent candidates, but independent candidates don't generally generate enough coverage to meet our GNG. My problem with the way that POLITICIAN is currently acting, is that it supercedes our GNG. Candidates from the major parties for national positions will generally meet the criteria related to coverage. Saying that it is a single event, IMO, is disingenous, these candidates have been around for months garnering coverage. It is extremely rare that you will find a political candidate who comes out of nowhere... and extremely rare that there won't be coverage. It is also reasonable to expect people to come to Wikipedia looking up these major candidates---and having them divert to other articles about the election is a POV.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a few things to comment on, but it can wait until after the elections. A centralized discussion on all of this would be good. Thanks for the reply! Location (talk) 05:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Bye

You are missed. Come back later. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I wish you well on your future endeavours. Resolute 22:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

... and welcome back. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ironies of Ironies=

The entire time that I was active on Wikipedia, I had "retired" from my job as a BalloonTwister, now that I've retired from Wikipedia, I have a regular gig doing balloons!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the elections!

Dear Balloonman, thank you for nominating yourself as a candidate in the 2010 Arbitration Committee elections. On behalf of the coordinators, allow me to welcome you to the election and make a few suggestions to help you get set up. By now, you ought to have written your nomination statement, which should be no more than 400 words and declare any alternate or former user accounts you have contributed under (or, in the case of privacy concerns, a declaration that you have disclosed them to the Arbitration Committee). Although there are no fixed guidelines for how to write a statement, note that many candidates treat this as an opportunity, in their own way, to put a cogent case as to why editors should vote for them—highlighting the strengths they would bring to the job, and convincing the community they would cope with the workload and responsibilities of being an arbitrator.

You should at this point have your own questions subpage; feel free to begin answering the questions as you please. Together, the nomination statement and questions subpage should be transcluded to your candidate profile, whose talkpage will serve as the central location for discussion of your candidacy. If you experience any difficulty setting up these pages, please follow the links in the footer below. If you need assistance, on this or any other matter (including objectionable questions or commentary by others on your candidate pages), please notify the coordinators at their talkpage. If you have followed these instructions correctly, congratulations, you are now officially a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Good luck! Skomorokh 22:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions from Lar

Hi. Best of luck in your upcoming trial by fire. As in previous years I have a series of questions I ask candidates. This year there are restrictions on the length and number of questions on the "official" page for questions, restrictions which I do not agree with, but which I will abide by. I nevertheless think my questions are important and relevant (and I am not the only person to think so, in previous years they have drawn favorable comment from many, including in at least one case indepth analysis of candidates answers to them by third parties). You are invited to answer them if you so choose. I suggest that the talk page of your questions page is a good place to put them and I will do so with your acquiescence (for example, SirFozzie's page already has them as do the majority of other candidates). Your answers, (or non-answers should you decide not to answer them), that will be a factor in my evaluation of your candidacy. Please let me know as soon as practical what your wish is. Thanks and best of luck. (please answer here, I'll see it, and it keeps things together better) ++Lar: t/c 01:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at them yet, but I will try to respond this evening---otherwise it won't be until after Thanksgiving weekend.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I see you put them on the questions page. General practice has been that the 75 word limit is enforced on that page and mine belong on the questions talk page instead. Would you like me to move them? ++Lar: t/c 18:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Welcome back Balloonman, your essays are superb and well-written and your analytical reviews at RfA are much appreciated.

Balloonman has been inducted into the Order of the Mop, for their hard work and dedication and is entitled to display this award for being such a great admin, Kind regards and happy editing, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 04:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

For a userbox version go here.
You are member number: 37

Welcome back again, I hope you stay longer and keep up the good work! Regards, —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 3:14pm • 04:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Admin status

Hiya, just curious about something, as I research the various ArbCom candidates. You appear to have been an admin in the past, but are not an admin now. Could you explain why this is so? Thanks, --Elonka 05:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Balloonman retired prior to his standing up for election to the ArbCom. I don't think he's asked for his bit back yet. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 10:11am • 23:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawal

The field is lessened by your withdrawal, though I certainly understand your motivations. Be well wherever you go and whatever you find to do that inspires your passion. Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh shit. One of the few people I thought would do a good job. I'd sooner have you popping up and seriously evaluating the odd case than most of the other candidates being there day in day out. Polargeo (talk) 10:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Well said, Jclemens. I was positively surprised to see you as a candidate and I am now saddened that you decided to withdraw. Regards SoWhy 10:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Add me to the disappointed list. :( --RegentsPark (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Disappointed to see you go, but I hope you find new things to enthuse you. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Echoed. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Tis the season

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

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.

Hope you are still around to see this ϢereSpielChequers 11:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

WSOP bracelet templates

Someone has come up with a format that will not cause too much clutter by adding 5 or 10 templates to successful players' pages. It combines decades thus most players will only have one or two templates added. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:2000s_WSOP_Bracelet_Winners and comment. I liken it to {{2010-2019VSFashion Show}} in terms of usefulness and value.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that you were the GA author of World Series of Poker bracelet, for which I was the reviewer. I had thought you might be interested in commenting on this one. If so, it has been relisted for discussion (in case you missed the first discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

My recollection is a bit off. I was the GA Sweeps reviewer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You commented at the discussion about a category, but the discussion was about a template. Please revisit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Your second response still mentioned category, but seemed a bit more like a response to the template discussion. Just not sure what to make of it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Balloonman/You Might Be a military Brat if:

User:Balloonman/You Might Be a military Brat if:, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Balloonman/You Might Be a military Brat if: and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Balloonman/You Might Be a military Brat if: during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. CTJF83 chat 22:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Military brats

Category:Military brats has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the category's entry on the Category for Deletion page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Question concerning userspace

Hello Balloonman. My old mentor (Accounting4Taste (talk · contribs)) has retired and so I'm lost for advice. I've had some run ins with you in the past and I've known you to be very respectable and I've read a few of your essays too and you seem to have a very clear understanding of all facets of Wikipedia. Moving on to the point. I came across this userpage about a comic book. I googled the comic book and it doesn't seem notable, I also googled the author and he doesnt seem notable. Per WP:USER, user pages can be used for article development, but not for promotion. I looked up the author, Martin Kevil, and he has editting Wikimedia commons as seem here. As you can see, he uses a dinosaur name. he uses another dinosaur name here on his flickr. Looking at the edit history of the article, there is someone editing heavily under the name Daspletosaurus 5000 (talk · contribs). I believe this to be the author. It's also already come into question here about whether or not this user is using two accounts. What would be the appropriate action to take here? I have no clear and certain evidence of a sockpuppet, nor do I have clear and certain proof of self promotion. But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...Please help. I already asked another editor and he said that it may not be what it seemed and I should ask an admin. I dont know what to do here.--v/r - TP 18:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I would keep an eye on it. As it is being actively developed I tend to give people a lot of room in their userspace. If he migrates it to the main space or it ceases to have meaningful development after a week, then I would prod or nominate it for deletion.

Having a confict of interest is not necessarily grounds for deletion, just extra scrutiny.

As for the possible multiple accounts... as long as they don't get into the same discussions *I* am not too worried about it. If you think it might be an issue, you can have the Check Users take a look at it.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Hey there, at Ctjf83's RfA, your oppose was showing as 'Oppose so I added an extra ' to make it bold properly, as I assumed that's what you intended. Pretty sure you wouldn't mind but I thought you should know anyway. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

G1 case

I deleted this a while back -- thought you might like it for your G1 survey.

The Philanthropist of Good Will/New Book Release

A Philanthropist of good will has been commissioned with affluent household’s running company based networks, featuring syndicated ratings increased by 100%. So that poverty stricken communities no longer exist.

Lana Gail Viessman

The special era of status began in Jefferson City, MO on August 14, when professional dates of Roman calendar chores, began to articulate standing ovations, recreating the fresh new start of medical partnership opening its doors to a good will Philanthropist. Lana G. Viessman has grown into the doctrine of a heart healthy race. Sprinting major periods of demographic status running nearest the highest population of full range commercial accounts. It is exceptional when imperial businesswomen devote their succession, to the duties of soul shepherding financial stewardship ministries. A Fortune 500 company harks back to the beginning of glory for a Good Samaritan, exhaling the positive welcoming press release of medical doctors joining her team. Bringing into present the overcast of a special task of negotiations for a businesswoman’s unique craft. A newly released book: “Following the Alabaster Treasury for Queen Lana G,” maps out sacred regions of mid-west, southwest, northern & eastern hemispheres, which best temperaments the gentleness of a special market niche, expanding customer base negotiations. And will develop relationship with world-class enthusiast honoring her talents for financial stewardship.

If the United States had a tassel jewel for every gift, which deserving recognition. Queen Lana G would be the newest profile of contribution. The length of days are in her hands are rich and full of honor. We are proud to announce the heroic phrases belonging to a newly found philanthropist. “Touche” is leading our country into the highest financial incentive for state & government, with foreign language acquisitions staging round table dinner trips. The highest income philanthropist/producer of twelve separate years, will formulate guidelines and facilitate the expansion of medical office locations. The approximate period of cabinet minutes, are supported by a public trust with the embellishing history of re-enacted scenes of Martin Luther King’s dream coming to light.

“She speaks to the inner being of people, not just be word of mouth. But with deeper communication uttered by her philosophy of ending poverty– when simply listening to the heart of a great philanthropist. “

Balloonhead?

Given your username, I can't help but wonder if you have any interesting perspective to offer on the recent Michell Bachmann-Chris Matthews-Glen Beck insultfest,[2][3] and whether or not you find the anthropomorphic use of "balloon" in pejorative manner to be personally offensive? HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Um... why would I care what they say or think about this or any other issue? Sorry, but I don't let political blow-hards get me riled up...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't a serious question. I had just come across your username in the same hour as I had read an article on that topic, and the result was the juvenile query that I posted on your talk page above. My embarrassment is palpable. HuskyHuskie (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Balloonman. You have new messages at Alpha Quadrant's talk page.
Message added 22:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WT:RFA

Speaking for myself, I don't have any problems with "one question in two parts". In fact, if the two questions depend on each other, the candidate is likely to prefer to see the whole thing at the same time. Whether two questions are related enough to count as one question is one of those "I know it when I see it" things, and of course, I wouldn't be looking to give someone a hard time if they had a different interpretation.

I also have no problem at all with your suggestion that we do something about inappropriate questions, if there's anything we can get consensus for. Every Western legal tradition disallows some questions during examinations and depositions, for various reasons. My preference would be to see whether there's consensus for the current poll before we start a new one, but YMMV. - Dank (push to talk) 21:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I cannot support a blanket limitation on legitimate questions, it just isn't going to happen. I'd rather go after the exam type questions that people should be able to resolve via an examination of the candidate. By limiting questions to one at a time, we aren't going to do anything except create a beaucratic system that takes us back to where we began. We aren't going to reduce bogus questions. First, there are too many people who see a question and it almost becomes a race to see who can add it to the next RfA. In the three RFA's that are currently active, we have the same question asked by three different people (Hasteur, Ebe123, Armbrust have asked the oppose/rebuttal question.) And there are enough people eager to ask the same questions over and over again that they will still be asked. And the time limit rule, that will only affect people with legitimate questions/concerns. People who are asking "generic"/"text book" questions won't be impacted. Either somebody else will ask the question or they can ask the question later without any real impact, because they'll just ask the question later.

People who have dug into a candidates history, however, may have noticed several trends. Those trends might result in meaningful questions/inquiries; but this proposal would impact that person with truly novel/relevant questions. That person with the meaningful questions might have the most pertinent questions in the RfA (pro or con), but this rule designed to limit "please write an oppose and rebuttal" type queries, would be impacted.

Also, if I'm digging around a candidate and find 3 or 4 issues. I have two choices, ask questions about the 3/4 issues or write an oppose. If I can ask about all of those issues at one time, I'm more likely to do so. If I have to revisit the board 3 or 4 times to get my questions answered, I'm more likely to write up my "findings" as an oppose. You've shifted the burden to the question asker with legitimate concerns/questions.

IMO, if the question is generic enough to be asked in every RfA, then it should either not be added or be added officially as one of the standard questions. We should not have non-standard standard questions.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to your ideas about a wider proscription on some questions; every Western legal tradition has proscriptions on questions. It's getting consensus that's the problem. - Dank (push to talk) 21:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You do bring up good points, especially the point about restrictions on good questions tilting the table in favor of the questioner with one terrible question, relative to what we've got now. My bottom line is: I'll support anything that improves the Q&A section in any way, as long as we can get consensus for it. Otherwise we're wasting time. - Dank (push to talk) 22:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

But any proposal <> improving the Q&A section. This proposal does nothing to get rid of the bogus questions or to limit the number/types of questions asked. In the end, the person who will be most affected will be the occassional question asker who, when they do have questions, may have more than one. When that person is limited in their ability to ask pertinent questions, then the system will fail because that person might have the key questions to truly assess the candidate. 90%+ of questions asked are a waste of time, but a few are actually beneficial.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you think?

Hi Balloonman, I wrote another article that IMO could make a nice DYK for April Fools Day. If you have a time, could you please take a look,and tell what you think. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

A couple of comments:

1. The article needs to be worked on, it not presented in an appropriate manner for WP. While long lead ins may be acceptable in a news story, this is still an encyclopedia. The actual factual story needs to come out, not be relegated to the end of the article.
2. In years gone by, the DYK:AFD has limited people to one hook. There had been so many entries that if you submitted two hooks, you had to choose which one to use and which one to remove. (Don't know if that will happen agains this year.)
3. Having one article about the media pulling an AFD joke is ok, but I would be leary of having two articles at DYK:AFD about media hoaxes.
4. I can see this one being a good hook if you wanted to use it. The hook I came up with:

...that the Guardian News Editor thought he had been scooped by his biiggest rivals on the most important story of the day, until he recognized Prof Alid Loyas name---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC).

Thank you for the comments. Which one of the two articles you personally like better for April Fools' day? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• I* like the penguins better, that one took planning, forethought, and cooperation between 3 major news outlets---and then it appears to have caught a fourth one off guard. It is also a little more believable, the UFO story instantly sounds like a story, but flying penguins... who knows... for all we know there might be a rare species of pengiuns out there that can fly.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll replace it then. There are 17 different kind of penguins. The most northern one live at equator at Galapagos islands, and although I have spent almost 2 months in Antarctic and sub-Antarctic Islands, and saw thousands of penguins in a wild, I am afraid I have never seen one to fly :( Maybe next time I'll get lucky. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Tickle Cock?

I nominated Tickle Cock Bridge at DYK last year. As you can see from the rather sad entry that was eventually accepted I didn't get my evil way with it. But then I rarely get my evil way with anything these days, must be getting old or lazy. Or perhaps both. Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

NPP

Hi Balloonman. A small group of editors is making an effort, step by small step, to improve the current situation at new page patrolling. As you are a user who is deeply concerned about the quality of new page patrolling, your input here would be much appreciated. --Kudpung (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Clean start

Hi, I have had a quick look at your questions in my RFA. Could you take a moment to consider the wording of the WP:Clean start policy? If I had violated that policy then my declaration would not have been supported by Arbcom and, at first glance, some of these questions ask if I have violated policy or not. To clarify, I would prefer you to feel free to ask any question that you find of interest, however the answers may be short and not that illuminating for an RFA if my replies themselves must be constrained for confidentiality reasons and basic policy. Thanks Fæ (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to oppose. While I generally think that a year is enough to get a good sense of a person, I am reluctant to do so when that person was involved in an RfC that lead to his/her retirement as we can't independently assess the issues. I should note, that this has nothing to do with you personally, but rather the situation. (In fact, I have a suspicion as to who you might be, and if I'm right, you know that I would have supported ya... but my inquiries were NOT to confirm my suspicions.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

My RFA hinges on everyone trusting an Arbcom statement and if that is insufficient then I doubt any procedural alternative apart from banning clean starts from ever openly running for admin would satisfy either. As these points have already been made in the RFA then I shall not go over them again. Fæ (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a minor nit - there has not been an Arbcom statement, and your declaration hasn't been supported by the committee. ArbCom has acknowledged the email documenting the clean start, and has recorded the accounts for future reference. That is all ArbCom usually does, as it is beyond their scope and capability to provide an analysis of a former account that would satisfy the community. OTOH, Arbcom does act when they can quickly see a reason why the clean start should be rejected.
To fill this void I have provided a statement from an arbitrator, in my personal capacity, after reviewing the accounts in order to feel comfortable doing so. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks JV, I was struggling with the words to use. That the clean start has been investigated and the declaration provided is accurate, there probably is a lack of understanding generally about what this means and my attempts to explain in the RFA were probably woolly too. Fæ (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Task force

Pursuing the task force idea ... would you be interested in participating, and if so, would it be possible for you to round up some people who share your views and keep in touch with them as the task force makes recommendations? - Dank (push to talk) 20:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody shares my views, I'm unique ;-) ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

So true. - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, if Jimbo/the Foundation were interested in reforming RfA and willing to consider forcing changes, then yes, I would be interested. I think things need to change, RfA has become a nightmare and needs to change. That being said, there have been a number of initiatives in the past that have gone nowhere. People spent thousands of hours off on a grassroots level reform movement only to discover that the community isn't going to change. I have become too much of a skeptic to spin my wheels hoping to reach a consensusology on meaningful changes to the RfA process. If we are going to pursue this, then it has to have the ear of Jimbo/WMF.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I think perhaps this time round it may have. Whatever changes we individually would like to see, I think the way to do it is to go into a huddle, close the door behind us, lock out the background noise, and have JW walking around the room waving a big stick. And I'll make the coffee.--Kudpung (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, if there is a legit possibility/probability that the Powers That Be will intervene, accept the proposal, and say "Let's try it." Then I'm game. I helped break the system, wouldn't mind being part of the process to try and fix it.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Good. Time to get the show on the road and break some new ground. --Kudpung (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to ask some questions about the endorsements idea at User_talk:Dank/RFA without distracting from the "Eureka" thread. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 00:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The budding task force is here. When there is a reasonable number of names on the list I'll move the page to project space. Kudpung (talk) 03:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

USFWS photo usage

Thanks for the input regarding photo usage under a CC license. Your advice is spot on and I will contact the photographer directly to license her work. Bill Butcher USFWS (talk) 03:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I just know how the Gov works... 3rd generation gov employee.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thought I smelled a member of the brethren  :). Bill Butcher USFWS (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

I noticed your listed at the Birthday Committee calender as April 1 being your first edit day, nice. :) -- œ^™ 06:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No wonder my wikilife has been such a joke!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 11:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for California Balloon Law

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Over 20K hits!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Balloonman. You have new messages at User:Kudpung/RfA reform/Voter profiles.
Message added 04:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RfA reform

Hi Balloonman/archive 25. I have now moved the RfA reform and its associated pages to project space. The main page has been updated and streamlined. We now also have a new table on voter profiles. Please take a moment to check in and keep the pages on your watchlist. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Poker Award

The Poker Award Award to the Balloonman for his excellent contributions to Poker topics on wikipedia and covering older tournaments which are usually neglected. Keep up the good work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Also the award is for apparently having the balls to confront Jimbo! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

California Balloon Law

Do you think File:Hannah Montana vs. 5000 volts.ogg or File:Hannah Montana vs. 5000 volts (cropped).jpg might be usable in California Balloon Law? --Tothwolf (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think one or both would be great, feel free to add 'em.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't really sure of the best way to add them. I figured you might have some ideas if they looked suitable for the article though. The video certainly shows what happens when one of these balloons gets in between two phases. In an actual distribution system, the arc in the demonstration would have kicked out the substation breaker feeding that section of distribution line. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back to activity

BTW, good of you to take up the toolset again. Jclemens (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It took me months to notice this, but welcome back! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That RfA Reform Thing

Kudpung has asked me to 'nudge' some people .. as I'm an idle get, I'm just going through the entire Task Force list so my apologies if you didn't need a nudge! You can slap me about over on WP:EfD if you like :o) Straw polling various options: over here - please add views, agree with views, all that usual stuff. Pesky (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Signature

I love your signature when it said "NO! I'm Spartacus!". But what on wikipedia does it mean? Is it that you would give up your life for wikipedia? ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 18:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

[4] – iridescent 19:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I changed my name for about 6 months in 2009 to "I'm Spartacus", but it never grew on me, so I changed it back to Balloonman, but left "No I'm Spartacus" as my talk page link as a reference to that name. If I remember correctly, I was involved in some heavily political debates and didn't want it to appear as if I was changing names to create a new account with similar views, so I made it obvious that I'm Spartacus = Balloonman.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No! I'm Spartacus video. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I just saw that you changed your signature. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 21:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Didn't realize that it had been 2 years since I was Spartacus...---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 00:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Your mediating skills are wanted again

Hi. Can you possibly fit into your schedule another dispute mediation? The discussion is at Talk:Donald_Trump#Use_of_the_word_.22racism.22 and in the Donald Trump article's recent edit summaries. I will always remember the great job you did at Tea Party movement. Thanks either way. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at it this evening.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you like to recuse yourself? I was surprised to read your initial feelings about Mr. Trump and I imagine the other side was too! I think you've done a fine job on this mission. But the argument is still taking place and I think perhaps it can move to the BLP noticeboard. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFA2011

Task Force news: Recent updates include basic minor changes and condensing at the main page, additional comments on the main page talk page, a new project sub page and talk for Radical Alternatives, and messages at Task force talk. A current priority is to reach suggested criteria/tasks for clerks, and then to establish a local consensus vis-à-vis clerking. Please remember to keep all the project and its talk pages on your watchlist. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

2007 World Series of Poker Circuit

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of 2007 World Series of Poker Circuit, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://news.pokerpages.com/index.php?option=com_simpleblog&task=view&id=2450.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The page was basically copied from an existing WP article... but upon closer review I see nothing in the copied version that would warrant a copy vio tag. I don't see it.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 00:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the above was a false positive (happens a lot). Could you add a note though to the talkpage saying which WP article you copied it from, for attribution purposes? Thanks, --BelovedFreak 19:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Task force WP:RFA2011 update

Hi. As of 20 June: More stats have been added on candidates and !voter participation. Details have been added about qualifications required on other Wikis for candidates and RfA !voters. Some items such as clerking, !voters, and candidates are nearing proposal stage. A quick page`link template has been added to each page of the project. Please visit those links to get up to speed with recent developments, and chime in with your comments. Thanks for your participation.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC).

WSOP Bracelet Winners template discussion

As a person who I believe is interested in the Bracelet Winners templates, I feel you might like to leave your input regarding the recent major edit. Feel free to join the discussion here. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Greetings!

As a member of the RfA improvement task force, your input is requested at the possible proposals page, which consists of ideas that have not yet been discussed or developed.

Please look though the ideas and leave a comment on the talk page on the proposal(s) you would most like to see go forward. Your feedback will help decide which proposals to put to the community. And, as always, feel free to add new suggestions. Thanks!

Swarm, coordinator, RfA reform 2011

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC).

WP:RFA2011: RfA on other Wikipedias

A detailed table and notes have now been created and posted. It compares how RfA is carried out on major Wikipedias (English, French, German, Italian, Spanish). If you feel that other important language Wikipedias should be added, please let us know. This may however depend on our/your language skills!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 22:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your help with coming up with a hook for the Andrew Pataki article. Here's a link if you want to follow the DYK nomination. — AJDS talk 17:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

PokerBabes as a reference

Hi. I would like to remove pokerbabes as a reference on the poker articles. It is a self published, somewhat obscure source, yet is used heavily all across the various poker articles. It is clear somebody had/has an agenda to get this site as much exposure as possible across Wikipedia and that meets my definition of spam and as such I don't think it should be used. I've removed it as a reference from a number of articles, see Joe Hachem, Razz, Omaha Poker, Ron Rose and many others, and I was reverted in each instance and don't want to get in an edit war. Would you support removing this site as a reference? How would you suggest I proceed? Thanks. DegenFarang (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Balloonman,
this has escalated quite a bit since DegenFarang left the above message. There's a new discussion at WT:POKER about this, and I believe you're active and quite knowledgeable in that area? I would welcome a neutral voice of reason there.
Cheers, Amalthea 14:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK suggestion

Hey DYK guru, you should check out this brand-new article for a DYK: Baunscheidtism <3 --Ginkgo100^talk 04:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ageism essay

I've proposed retitling your ageism essay to allow equal treatment of an opposing essay. If you have any comments please respond there; I'm just commenting here to make sure you're aware of the proposal.--MaxHarmony (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Good close

Good close (especially seeing as the user hasn't edited and it's been a week). Thanks for saving us the trouble writing that out =] –xeno^talk 14:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought about just adding my comments as a comment, but decided that since LC hadn't followed up with a response that we might as well close it. If LC had continued to be active during the discussion or participated in the discussion, it would have been a different story---but with the continued absense, I have to question if it was legit.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

RfA Reform update

Hi. It's been a little while since the last message on RfA reform, and there's been a fair amount of slow but steady progress. However, there is currently a flurry of activity due to some conversations on Jimbo's talk page.

I think we're very close to putting an idea or two forward before the community and there are at least two newer ones in the pipeline. So if you have a moment:

• Have a look at the min requirement proposal and familiarise yourself with the statistics, I'd appreciate comment on where we should put the bar.
• Any final comments would be appreciated on the clerks proposal.
• Feedback on the two newer proposals - Pre-RfA & Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Sysop on request. Both are more radical reforms of RfA and might run along side the current system.

Thanks for reading and for any comments that you've now made.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 21:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

Third culture kid

Hi there Balloonman,

How are you? Just wanted to let you know that Ruth E. Van Reken (herself!) and I both right now trying to improve the TCK article (we are in touch via email & Skype, I set up her user page for her because she didn't know how to use wikipedia at all). (I'm a CCK and TCK but not military.) I see you've done a lot of work on the article so I wanted to keep you in the loop. It would be great if, as you mentioned back in 2006 on the talk page, we could bring it up to FA or even anything better than "unassessed" :) (I aim low!)
At the moment I'm just trying to move all the references into inline citations so that the 'further reading' material (which I assume is in 'references' now) can be separated. But there's less boring stuff to be done, e.g. it would be great to get some images in there somehow. Anyway, I hope to hear from you.

Kind regards,
 TyrS  chatties  13:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow

I won't take offense at your 'wow', though it's kind of rude, but yes indeed, I am an admin, thank you very much. In your sarcastic haste, you managed to miss my point entirely: Arthur Rubin's claim of "involvement" was simply a ruse, given that the "involvement" in question was so undefined that I don't believe it. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

In that case, yes, I missed it and I do apologize. I thought you were being sincere in that you felt that he should act now.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying; my apologies if I wasn't clear. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011

RfA reform: ...and what you can do now.

(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.) The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere. A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits. The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments. The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals: Improving the environment that surrounds RfA in order to encourage mature, experienced editors of the right calibre to come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their time to admin tasks. Discouraging, in the nicest way possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to guide them towards the advice pages. The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space. We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus. New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern. Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 15:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Greetings

Hi, hope all is well with you and yours. I've finally been shamed into creating User:WereSpielChequers/Recall (Pedro named me in his, so I realised I really ought to have one myself). Would you be willing to be on the list? If so just edit it and move your name out of the hidden bit. ϢereSpielChequers 19:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Can I make the request now???? PLEASE??? PRETTY PLEASE---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Go on - for the lulz and all that :) Pedro :  Chat  20:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well at the moment there's just two of you.... thought there may be more soon. But I was tempted to make the trigger number 1 plus the number of members of the list who have edited in the last month. ϢereSpielChequers 20:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Balloonman/archive 25! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Eh?

([5]) Scratches head. --Dweller (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no clue... I haven't been on your page today. My best guess is that I fat fingered something, but other than that... no idea. I checked my edit history to see if there were other weird edits (eg to see if I might have been hacked) but this was it. So sorry about that... dunno how it happened.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought it would be something like that, cheers. It's happened to me before - I have real spadefingers, especially when logged in on my phone :-) --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Balloonman. You have new messages at Alpha Quadrant's talk page.
Message added 05:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

My recall criteria

Mwahaha...

Ok, I believe it should be easy to remove the bit, so I think I set the bar fairly low: User:Balloonman/recall---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Mwahahaha! I hold your administrative fate in my hands! –xeno^talk 21:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC) In seriousness, I think these are just slightly lenient.

I want them on the lenient side... but I will go back and make a quick modification.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Ref on Pius Heinz

The ref really was not there when I deleted the refname. If you look at the revision before mine, the ref was completely missing. My bad for not looking back further, but I did not do it without cause. :) BarryTheUnicorn (talk)

I see what I did. I deleted the previous statement in a prior edit, not realizing I had deleted the ref as well (which messed up the subsequent reference). Totally my mistake! BarryTheUnicorn (talk)

No problem ;-) I figured it was a mistake, but wanted to alert you to it in as friendly of a manner as I could manage via the written word.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCOM Elections

I've had two people contact me about running for ArbCOM... and the answer is simply "No." I have zero desire to run for ArbCOM (presumably because I contemplated it last year.) So if you were wondering if I was gonna throw my hat into the ring, the answer is a resounding NO!---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Make that three :) --regentspark (comment) 14:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but NO ;-)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi

G'day. I'm trying to distill a picture of the problem with controversial image use. Would you mind giving me a brief summary of what you think the problem is here? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Preganancy

I strongly believe everything I have posted on that page. I have every right to argue against editors like yourself who want to push Wikipedia towards Conservapedia. I have every bright to say it clearly and firmly. That you (and other conservatives) failed to accept the real result of the previous RfC shows either poor logic or bad faith. There is no question in my mind. I am defending a well established status quo. You want it to change. You must behave well to get any acceptance at all for your view. Many of us don't believe you have behaved well. HiLo48 (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Too bad, because you didn't defend your position, you chose instead to attack anybody who disagreed with it. You were condescending and mischaracterized people at every turn. You applied motives that didn't exist and if they disagreed with you, you said that they acted in bad faith and had low morals. Sorry, that is not how Wikipedia operates. So I have opened the first ANI report that I've EVER opened against somebody.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 12:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

HiLo48

Have you notified him of the recent thread?--Tznkai (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Si--and he responded already---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 00:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Swarm's talk page.

Body painting

Sorry to interrupt when you're thinning out the images, but I commented on the talk page about using the Demi Moore image in the lede. you might want to read what I wrote. Respond on the article talk if if you have thoughts. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ha, you responded to my other comment, not the one I meant. In "The Top Picture" I pointed out that the Demi image is non-free and we probably can't justiify it in the lede. We can, however, probably justify it in the section that she's mentioned in. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I responded to both... do you know where it says that we can't use non-free images in the lede? IF so, then we should definitely move it elsewhere (i'd probably put the Saints fan in the lede if we did.) I don't have time to look it up right now... if what you say is supported by policy/guidelines (which I could beleive) then I agree we should probably move it. The image is, IMO, the most important piece of body art ever---due to the shere number of people who have viewed it and frankly the controversy it created 20 years ago.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. Missed you responding on the article talk. I'm about to log for the night. I'll have more of a dig on image policy tomorrow and see what it says in detail. From what I can recollect, it needs to be the subject of the article/section and not just a general example. I'll dig more and post to the article talk tomorrow. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing the policy and the wording; because the image is so iconic and relative to the subject.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Your comment on ANI

Given how the term is used in the UK, do you really think that this comment was helpful?Nigel Ish (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Since this is here. Re your He also explained that the word cunt is less offensive in England than it is in the U.S.. Very dubious. "Cunt" is extremely rude in the UK William M. Connolley (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I've now seen ...Spaz. In England, it has a completely different meaning and is considered highly offensive. No, not really. It is usable in daily conversation, as long as you're sure nobody too PC is around William M. Connolley (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

RE: Cunt, I can't comment on it. RE: Spaz, that may or may not be true, but according to the sources I've seen, Spaz was selected as the second most despicable word in England a few years ago. There is a long epistimology on how the two words have different meanings---one which I actually explored back when Tiger Woods landed in it deep because he referred to himself as a Spaz.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

If I'd had to guess at our second most offensive word I'd have thought it was N****r, which has caused national scandal when used on air. In my experience the C word is unacceptable in mixed company - I even worked in one place where it was the only verboten word. But I suspect much of this is generational, in my lifetime we've shifted from the "worst" profanities being religious or sexual to them mostly being racial, and as a consequence the f word in particular has lost much of its taboo status. ϢereSpielChequers 00:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Then what would be the worst one? According to this[6] spaz is still number 2.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 03:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the C word is still currently the rudest, but that may vary by generation. If current tends continue it wouldn't surprise me if in another generation all the completely unacceptable words are terms of racial abuse and the C word and other words related to sex and gender have lost some of their impact. Where I live I expect a politician would find it easier to survive if caught in an off mike moment calling someone a c*** than certain words of racial abuse. But that doesn't mean that it is acceptable except among close friends. ϢereSpielChequers 16:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I personally believe in linguistic reclaimation... like blacks in america using the term nigger. It is still taboo both within and without their community, but I'm hoping for a day where it can be used without the insinuations that it currently carries---and used by people regardless of their race. Kinda like queer, queen, sooner, nerd, Mormon, cowboy etc all used to be terms of derivement, but have since been reclaimed. I think the next wave of insults might center around religious beliefs!---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Tory and Whig both started out as insults only to be embraced as Party names, but I think that insults need to go through a phase of being used as self-identification before others can safely use them as a label. As for religion, Papist, heretic, blasphemer and infidel all seem terribly archaic to me, perhaps you are right and we will see such words revived as insults; Crusader has I suppose come back already, but do we yet have insult words for Atheists and Moslems? ϢereSpielChequers 17:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That is part of the reclaimation process... outsiders use it as an insult. Insiders adopt it within their own community (blacks and the term nigger for example.) Slowly "outsiders" who are friendly to the group start using it. And then it is reclaimed. But I see new insults when it comes to religion... Islam is going to be a target. But if I were a betting man, I'd guess that anti-religious sentiments are going to grow---especially if they resist homosexuality.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Seasons greetings

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

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec11}} to your friends' talk pages.

Hi Balloonman, tis the season of mincepies and bearded waistband enhanced persons getting stuck in chimneys. Enjoy! ϢereSpielChequers 00:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors – MHotY coming; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the Congolese Wars Review essay: Ian Rose goes to El Alamein Op-ed: DCI's call to revitalize WikiProject History

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)