User talk:Balloonman

Unless otherwise specified, I will respond to you on the page where the conversation started, whether that is your talk page or mine.

Home Talk Contributions Blocks Deletions Moves Protections monobook.js Userspace

Archive box

{{Talkback|Balloonman|RE: }}

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Elli	179	5	2	97	Open	16:53, 7 June 2024	2 days	no	report

What do you say to a 4 year old

Who killed your 10 year old wedding present by putting it into the freezer?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd imagine there's not a lot you could say without becoming overly expressive of your feelings. Sorry to hear of your loss B'man. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say to stick the dildo [cough]4 year old[/cough] in the freezer to teach it a lesson. Oh wait... Ummm, I'd probably explode. I never learned anger management. :( RIP Bonzo. Enigma ^message 06:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Er, Enigma, I think you were trying to be funny, but it failed... the 4 year old is my son.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

BN comments

Are you jokingly repeating my last two lines? I don't get it. Mind you, I've been generally a bit thick today, so it's no real surprise! --Dweller (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the rephrasing of the question, for question number 4 is a legit question. It is a different scenario... would the name "Doctor of Love" matter if the user were some teenager wanting to make some juvenille claim as compared to an actual authority in that arena. Personally, if the name "Doctor of Love" came up, as phrased in question 4, it wouldn't bother me---but in the scenario presented in your question 3, where it is a person working in love and romance, that would change my answer. It ceases to be some dumb user name and becomes a claim to authority. The RfB meme v RfB question---I didn't even notice you had said it. So, my paraphrasing your comment there, was my stupidity---not yours. If you look above, I didn't get much sleep last night---or (if you've seen my other posts) the last several nights have been somewhat sleep free as well.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I bid us both a good night. Sadly, my bed is still some hours away... lol. --Dweller (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I just woke up a few hours ago... so... argh... but I NEED sleep! <---I would fix the typo, but I tried 3 times, and couldn't! That's how tired I am right now.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)EDIT: Somebody fixed my typos!!!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Point 1

Hi Balloonman! Indeed, I completely misinterpreted what you meant by point #1 in the original essay. After the elaboration (I'm flattered that you wrote it to clarify our small dispute), it is clear that we agree on this point.

However, I think the heading 'act like an admin' is inappropriate for the subject matter—IMO, it should be more like, as you said, 'act like a decent human being'. You don't need to be an admin or 'admin hopeful' to be loyal to the project, mature, responsible and help other users. As they always say in the army's various command courses, never forget that before you are a commander, you are a soldier, and before that you are a human being. I think that if any regular Wikipedia contributor doesn't follow that principle, we have a problem, regardless of RfA status. To take that one step further, I believe that if a Wikipedian doesn't do at least most of the things you outlined in 'act like an admin', they should never (within reason) be an admin. Admin coaching can't change a human being into being more mature, more civil, or more helpful—and if it does, the change is likely artificial and only reflects the user's desire to become an admin—which is one of the main reasons I oppose the very concept of admin coaching.

In the specific case of Dendodge, there are just so many problems that I don't know where to begin. I won't write an essay on why I think he should not be an admin (and this is phenomenal in itself—for all previous RfA candidates I've opposed, the concerns were specific and could be addressed reasonably quickly—I did not actually think they were unfit for adminship), but will try to explain a bit more when I'm coming from. Basically, Dendodge reminds me of myself at the time of the first RfA in June 2006. It's not that I was a bad user, unhelpful, incivil, or disloyal to the encyclopedia. I actually displayed very clearly all the qualities you talk about in 'act like an admin', and had (for the time) a very good record of article contributions. However, I really wanted to become an admin and tried very hard, despite often having no actual interest or clue in the things I was doing. A good example is the help desk, in which I too was active. The other glaring similarity is replying and arguing oppose !votes. The third similarity is an opinionated user page and a shaky record of upholding one of Wikipedia's core policies (BLP for Dendodge, copyrights for me). I was rightfully denied adminship at that time, but this does not mean I would've abused the tools; it was just a clue to stop trying so hard and start contributing more to the non-admin areas, which I will talk about in the next paragraph (hope you're still with me ;)). Of course, aside from the above, Dendodge has a plethora of issues which were outlined in the opposes. But you don't need to look very far to see the quote on his userpage saying "This page looks rubbish in Internet Explorer - it's not my fault, it's Microsoft's for making such a useless browser. Get Firefox - it's free, and better in every way!", which strikes me as a particularly immature comment.

About article writing vs. 'admin areas': I never said that working in 'admin areas' was bad, just that it was bad when done at the expense of article writing, and this unfortunate trait is easy to see in many of today's RfA candidates (many of whom were admin-coached). My understanding is that, while it is possible to gain policy understanding by working mostly in admin areas, when you work mostly on articles for a long time, policy understanding is guaranteed. I talked about this a bit in my recent RfA (follow-up to A1).

Actually moving 100 articles gives you a much better understanding of when and why articles should be moved than participating in WP:RM discussions, because someone who only participates in WP:RM might not have even read WP:NC, which cannot be the case for someone who made 100 non-housekeeping moves (unless those moves were all reverted ;)).

Writing articles and participating in talk discussions really gives you a perspective on notability and what should go in and stay out of Wikipedia; participating in AfDs only, without the earlier, gives a general picture of the current deletion trends at best. AfD-mania among admin-hopefuls is, IMO, one of the reasons why AfDs are slowly turning into empty straw polls, and many are now using '!vote' instead of 'vote' just to be politically correct, not because they understand what it's supposed to mean.

Making small content contributions to 1,000 articles/subjects you have some idea about and keeping them on your watchlist is, believe me, a much more effective way of vandal-fighting (especially subtle vandalism) than patrolling recent changes or participating in WP:AIV.

So yeah, sorry for the elaborate pseudo-rant, just that this 'working in admin areas and admin coaching to pass RfA' business frustrates me very much since I got semi-interested in the process again after my recent go (to be honest, both the nom and the success came as a great suprise). Hope I didn't bore you to death, assuming you read all that! Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. This page doesn't have a link to your talk archives, is this on purpose? Just letting you know. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 04:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that learning policy is guaranteed to get one policy knowledge. While I definitely agree that building the encyclopdia is necessary. But your premise is faulty. Exploring different areas of the project is not by definition taking away from building the project. In fact, many of the people who go through coaching don't build the encyclopedia to begin with. When they go through my coaching process, I insist on building the project (but I'm liberal in how that is interpretted.) So for some people, coaching might be their first exposure to building the project. Thus, the premise that coaching detracts from writing articles is false. Second, your notion that you can learn all the policies via article building is erroneous. There are areas of the project that you can't learn via article writing. You don't learn what acceptable names are via article writing, nor do you gain exposure to XfDs, or blocking. Article building is ONE component of the project, but without the other areas (ones that you and I don't like) the project would collapse under its own weight. There are tons of areas that need people to work, and we need people who know the intricacies of these areas. Getting exposure to different areas is never a bad thing, the project has enough areas to work in, that it is impossible to know all of the areas. Working solely in the article space may give you a superficial understanding of the different areas, but not the depth. One of the reasons why I encourage establishing footprints in different areas (as compared to drive by coaching) is because it allows others to provide input into the development of the coachee. As for the talk header, I removed the header stuff today because of the first post.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)PS you will often note my !votes will be to the effect of, "candidate is already an admin, we are just making it official." This is because they are an admin.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. If editing articles doesn't give you enough exposure to XfDs and blocking, you probably aren't editing enough articles/editing articles enough. Of course, this can somewhat be sped up by participating in these areas without them being related to articles you edit, but this is precisely the premise I oppose. There's no need to speed up the admin process, because admins should naturally mature into the position. It's true that admins are needed and some backlogs are very long, but in fact the longest and most difficult to clear backlogs are the ones requiring input from users who write articles, such as GA reviews. Other areas like RfC which have no long backlogs, but still require article-builder input, are also in very bad shape because supposedly you need to participate in [insert number] XfDs to become an admin. This is exactly the reason why the old CotW, once a very active project, died—users who have nothing specific to edit but willing to contribute no longer went to CotW, but instead !voted in XfDs to 'score points' for adminship. That's the kind of habits that admin coaching encourages, and the kind of habits that I am against.

It's true that some admin coaches, including yourself, specifically state that article building is needed, but I believe that exactly how to edit articles is not stressed. While it's nice when someone takes your admin coaching advice and turns an article or two into GA/FA, this is ultimately not what I personally have in mind when I think 'article editing'. First and foremost, article editing involves a certain scope of articles, which you constantly watch, copyedit, format, add basic information, etc. Optimally, this scope should be a few thousand-large, which, as long as there are no highly-visible articles there, shouldn't take more than half an hour a day or so to manage. After you are done with your watchlist, you can research, add content, and go that extra mile to bring an article to GA or FA status. I have seen such editing practices encourages on Wikipedia, but never in the context of admin coaching or RfA, which is incredibly sad. Getting an article on your favorite topic to FA is wonderful, but as you said yourself, it does not expose you to XfDs, blocking, disputes, etc. Editing articles, the way I described above, does. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are only involved in XfD's to the point that you were brought there via articles that you are editing, then you aren't going to get much exposure. There are people who work in a few niche areas, and only go to XfD's when an article in their niches are up for deletion. Which means that they may never be exposed to the nuiances of other types of articles. I would never be exposed to music articles (except the Wiggles) if I only followed my article editing experience.

RfC doesn't have a backlog, but RfC is also an area that A) doesn't lend itself to backlogs and B) doesn't require formal admins. As for XfD... *I* don't think it is the only way to show policy knowledge. I don't require my coachees to spend time in any area... but I ask them to make 2-4 constructive edits per day in areas that interest them. This could be XfD's. 2-4 edits doesn't take much time, in fact, in my opinion, I try to keep the amount of time in 'coaching activities' to a minimum. (no drive by assignments.)

As for getting articles to FA status, I'm sorry but most people simply do not have the writing skills or patience to do that. I did it once, and then stumbled upon an article where I could claim a second FA (but acknowledge, that Figureskatingfan was the prime driver there.)

Most people can not contribute at that level when it comes to writing. *I* can't, and I am not an English teacher. I can't teach somebody how to write. Coaching isn't about teaching people how to write. Wikipedia isn't about teaching people how to write. If you want to be a writer, then write. Most pure writers don't want to be admins. People who don't have those skills have to contribute elsewhere. I contribute in a manner that I think is beneficial to the project, in a way that I can be beneficial to the project.

There are others who similarly contribute to the best of their abilities. Take a look at Amathea below. Gander at Amathea's talk page. You will see a person who is civil and knowledgable about policies. Somebody who takes care when s/he does anti-vandalism. Somebody that I would be proud to nominate for admin. Unfortunately, he doesn't have the article building creds... so, in order for him to pass an RfA, he is going to have to stop contributing in a way that best utilizes his skills to jump through hoops that "article builders" are imposing on him. (Now in full disclosure, if he were to run, I would have building the encyclopedia at the top of my oppose---I do agree that it is imperative that CSD/NPP people have experience building the project.) But that doesn't change the fact, that his best contributions to the project will never be to get an article to FA---it just ain't going to happen. His skills/talents are elsewhere.

We need people in different areas, with different skill sets. One size fits all won't work for a project of this size. Article building is ONE path, it is NOT the only path. Frankly, I find it elitist for anybody to presume that their way is the only way.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

And finally the wisdom that people love from a small segment of our CSD/NPP community

I think your essay is pretty insulting to be honest. You could same the same thing about quite a few different classes of vandalism fighters that fall under the exact same classifications as people who clean up the site so it's not turned into a disgusting wasteland of 12 year olds writing about themselves and companies advertising. I think you're jealous that no one lets you CSD articles :( Cheer up, bud. 06:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Glad that you had the courage to sign this with your real name.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC) Oh, and to get the full impact of the maturity of this CSD'er/NPP'er, you have to review the associated vandalism---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

*cough* Not exactly NPP, looks like... lifebaka++ 06:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

huh??? I don't think you are taking responsibility for this? But I'm missing who it looks like?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to vandalize someone's page, at least make it funny. Will some uninvolved administrator please block this guy? Enigma ^message 06:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's only been one drive by of a coward, who apparently found my essay to be too close to home! ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Renames

On CHU, it's not just the contributions and user logs we go through. We also check the edits on other language wikipedias, and sometimes match editing patterns on commons for different tasks (for example in determining SUL issues). Also, we run a google search check on suspect usernames, and at times also check if the desired username is not offensive in another language. There are times when we need to closely coordinate with blocking admins, and occasionally stewards, and if major issues crop up, we also alert WP:AN to watch certain users or editing patterns. So, its not a simple button click to change a username. There is a lot that goes on behind the scenes. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's an area that I've been paying a casual eye to over the past couple of days with the intent of getting more involved there, but I need to figure out what's happening, so I appreciate the comments.`---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

A case study…

When you can't find a CSD criteria to fit, just make one up. – iridescent 22:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure which gave me the bigger chuckle, the reason or your response!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What makes it worse is that the comment "the article has no encyclopedic content" is a downright lie. – amicon 22:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

And what makes it even worse than that is that had he taken 10 seconds to look at either the history or the talkpage, he'd have seen the article surviving an AFD discussion with a unanimous "keep" vote. N00bs being over-eager with deletion tags, I can live with. N00bs not bothering to perform the most basic checks, not so much. (I confess to veering close to the WP:BITE line in my post to his talk, but the "I've never heard of it, delete" CSD taggers seem to be out in force today.) – iridescent 22:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

While I'm here… on the subject of deletion

Can you, or any passing Talk Page Watchers, offer a second (third, fourth) opinion on Royal Marines A.F.C. (see also this thread on my talk). My instinctive reaction is that this is a viable article and worth keeping – IMO, "verifiable" and "potentially useful" trump any arbitrary "not important enough" guideline, which are clearly intended to prevent articles being posted about Little League teams and group-of-friends-in-the-park outfits, not teams like this which represent a significant institution and only fail on a technicality; because the team was wound up and re-founded, this new incarnation has not yet had the chance to take part in a notable competition. (The English football season runs September-July, so they won't be able to enter said competitions for nine more months.) I really dislike seeing this type of article deleted by the self-proclaimed Notability Patrol (you know who they are), but do you think I'm overreacting here? – iridescent 23:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have experience dealing with the footie project? I remember delving into issues like this several times, only to emerge a bloody carcass on the other side of the argument. There are stubborn Wikipedians, there are batshit-insane editors, and then there's the WP:Football project. No offense if anyone here is involved there - it's that I apparently don't have the cajones to deal effectively with these folk. Tan | 39 23:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It is potentially notable, but it makes no assertion of notabiolity other than one source which provides little to no information within the article, and doesn't seem to pass WP:RS. I'm not sure this team plays high enough in professional football to be considered worthy of an encyclopaedia article. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the intricicies of British Soccer Teams ;-) But it does look as if this is being proded based upon criteria that the WP:Football project has worked out. from what I can tell, it looks as if the precident is that football clubs are notable if they play at Step 6 or above or in an premiere tournament. As the league is Step 7 if fails that criteria, and as it is new, it hasn't competed at the highest level of the secondary criteria. I wouldn't fight it myself, looks like there is precidence, and like tan says---those British Soccer fans can be fanatical.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I've seen you around and have been impressed by you. Keep it up. Yanksox (talk) 03:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... unexpected compliments like this are the best!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Another CSD Essay---I need your help.

User:Balloonman/CSD G1 survey This is a review of 25 CSD's tagged for G1. It is in rough draft form, but would like to get the opinion of those who watchlist my page.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you also include the titles of the pages? --Amalthea 12:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Extended content

In my opinion it's only a borderline A7: There's no credible indication of significance, but it's a description of the building as much as of the people who live in it. I would have PRODded it. OK Not at all a G1! Key sentence there is "Which if you have ever played the game" - if you (excessively) played Diablo 2 you know what he's talking about, and it's not incoherent. Not sure if I'm a reasonable person per WP:PN though. It's also debatable wether this is really an A7, since it's really more a field report than it's about him, so I would PROD it. OK, unless the title gave context OK gnews: "Chuck Norris may be so tough he has a third fist under his beard". Knowing that it's a joke that is around I can make some sense of it, and (depending on the title) a redirect would have been appropriate. I wouldn't start splitting hairs here if it's deleted G1 though. OK OK OK OK It is blatantly unconstructive, but is it intentionally unconstructive? A7 wouldn't be, since it's about a fictional entity. In my opinion a PROD is the right answer, but G3 is OK. Obviously not a CSD. I'm not even seeing the hoax? a perfect example why halfway readable stuff *shouldn't* be speedied. I don't know Family Guy, I checked the first two URLs which didn't lead anywhere, so to me, it doesn't make sense. It's not patent nonense though, so it should get a wider audience through a PROD. OK OK OK OK, unless the title gave context PROD as WP:OR borderline G3, or PROD as an uncontroversial deletion (which is actually what WP:HOAX suggests) OK OK OK OK OK OK

Are you sure you haven't hand-picked those? I always thought that A1 is the most misapplied tag (and might be in absolute numbers), but G1 looks even worse in relative numbers. --Amalthea 13:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you should use PROD in your review results more often, and maybe add alternatives to deletion where you find that AfD would have been the appropriate response: I think some of those should just have been tagged for cleanup or redirected. --Amalthea 13:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I hand picked these only insofar as I was looking for G1/Nonsense in my analysis. To me, G1 was always the most misapplied tag.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Made most of your changes as I agreed with them.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment on NuclearWarfare's RfA

Hi there. I didn't want to comment further on the RfA, it's going too off-topic anyway, but I just wanted to tell you, that you are of course correct, when you point out that there are valid reasons to oppose based on userboxes. My argument was more about those userboxes which say "This user is a Christian/atheist/Democrat/Republican/Socialist/whatever", i.e. those which only show what the user in question believes in, nothing more. I think we both agree that those userboxes should not be a reason for oppose, at least not if the user has no track record of being biased in any way. I do think the "evil atheist conspiracy" is another one of them btw., referring to a fictional parody organisation and nothing more. It's no worse than one saying "This user supports the Democratic Party" (actually it's less worse, as the Democratic Party exists). But anyway, I just wanted to leave you a note that I have not ignored your response to my comment and that I agree with you. Have a nice day :-) SoWhy 07:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, EAC was borderline. For the most part I do not think userboxes are justification for opposes, and if somebody removes them, I won't let them having them in the past sway my verdict because most user boxes are created by 'somebody else.' Thus, if a person added as user box that said, 'This user believes all [members of x party] are closed minded idiots who should be shot.' It will weigh less to me than if the user actually wrote, 'This user believes all [members of x party] are closed minded idiots who should be shot.' They key (to me) is when an objection is raised about a user box, does the candidate do the right thing? If they do, then I won't hold the boxes against them, even if they were dubious to begin with. If they don't, I'll put minimal weight to it. I probably would never oppose solely on a user box though... but I will defend those who do.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

{{db}}

This is something I've been thinking about for some time now, and (as your talkpage is currently a noticeboard on all things CSD), I thought it made more sense to raise it here first instead of at WT:CSD, so if there's a good reason against it people could raise it quietly instead of 200 irate NPP-ers descending on my talkpage.

Do you think it would make sense to TFD, or at least deprecate, {{db}} and {{db-reason}} as templates? It's a relic of our early days when the deletion policy was more flexible, and doesn't appear to serve any useful purpose any longer, as we have {{db-a5}}, {{db-r2}} etc – plus textual {{db-bio}}, {{db-redirect}} etc equivalents – for every speedy criteria.

Since there's no longer such a thing as a valid speedy tagging that doesn't fit into any of the named CSD categories, there seems to be no point having a "general" template. If anything, the existence of this template encourages people to mis-tag articles {{db|hoax}}, {{db|dicdef}} and so on. Removing this template – and hence NPP-ers ability to make up deletion reasons for pages they don't like – would force anyone wanting to speedy tag an article to find an appropriate reason for deletion, and if they couldn't find one they would have to go through a more appropriate deletion process. Am I missing some really obvious reason why we need to keep these? – iridescent 14:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, there's been a very short thread about this at Template talk:Db#The main "db" template - do we really need it?. --Amalthea 14:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I'm becoming a talk page all things concerning CSD... and you all know how much I love CSD!

I agree, the templates are probably a bad thing and should be done away with. That being said, I doubt if we could get consensus to do so. People like holding onto their traditions crutches.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Now you know I I felt when my talkpage was doing double-duty as the Huggle Complaints Department. – iridescent 14:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me guess

The user you referred to in your latest thread on the RFA Talk page was Amicon, Aka How do you turn this on, right? Are you aware this user has invoked their right to vanish? Just thought I'd tell you. I sincerely doubt How will be running for any kind of office. 86.29.235.46 (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

yes, it was via his name change... although I AGF with him that he didn't make the change to effect a possible RfA. It was just the timing of it made me realize what would happen if he were to run. I've often wondered how many people fly under the radar because of name changes that shouldn't. There are a few people that I have had run ins in the past that I will oppose on sight. I sometimes wonder if I've ever supported them at an RfA not realizing whom they were because of a name change. Again, while it was HDYTTO/Amicon that got me to think about it, I don't think he did it with the intention to deceive, but rather because (as he said) his name was just too damn long.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm a massive pedant

The singular of "criteria" is... criterion. I know, I know, I'd get a life, if only I wasn't so busy editing Wikipedia. --Dweller (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol, that was a funny post. — Realist² 16:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Now you know why I'm not a copy-editor ;-) English has never been my forte.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol. I'm not just a projectspace stalker, I'm happy to c-e any of your mainspace work for you. --Dweller (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

When I first started at WP, I thought FAC/GA would be a fun area to work in... I have a critical eye for flow and concept, but quickly realized that I didn't have the CE ability to proof read for spelling/grammar that was necessary. I've actually DELIBERATELY incorporated non-standard grammar into my everyday correspondence---that way when I make a faux pas... it isn't quite as obvious ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ping

When you have a free moment, can you please check your email? Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Email

You have email. Could you respond via email please? Thanks :) - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You are getting a lot of email today, yes? If you need a secretary to handle your fan mail, let me know...I could use a couple of extra bucks. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Balloonman/CSD A1 survey

Tell me how I did with A1 CSD's?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Your percentages don't add up, 2 of 20 is 10%

2. OK, and can't be more wrong. If it has wikilinks, it hardly ever can be an A1
10. I think you meant A1 instead of G1 in your review here?
11. I don't see any attack. A professor said something in a course, and a student created an article about it. PROD as WP:MADEUP.
12. I could let that one slide as an A1. It's certainly on the long side of "very short", but I don't see how the subject of the article could be identified to even think about looking for sources or more information.
17. I was wrong above: it can be more wrong. If it has references, it hardly ever can be an A1.

I find it interesting that a higher percentage here shouldn't be speedily deleted, compared to G1. Maybe that's where I got the impression of more A1 mistaggings than G1. I'd also be interested if the clarification in Twinkle three weeks ago had a positive effect, but that's probably hard to judge. :)
Amalthea 22:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

10: It was G1---NOT G10! 12: The only reason why I wouldn't go with A1 is because the page name gives it context. It is near a school/basement/etc. Also, remember if I kept two of the Admin's edits here, the percentage would have blossomed in the keep category. The only reason it isn't higher is because I stopped looking at two Admins after realizing that they had no clue.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Re 12: If my French hasn't abandoned be "Salle d'oragé" means "hall of storm", which doesn't help that much. We might actually differ in our interpretation of A1 here though: I am looking for enough context so that I (ETA: or someone, if I feel I just lack the expertise, which should have happened here) can reasonably start looking for sources, which is more than just an idea of what the subject might look like. A room with a made-up name in the basement of a school is, to me, as good as the funny man with the red car: I can picture them in my head, but can't put a finger on where or who the topic is, to identify them.
Oh, and I never even saw those articles of course, I was unhappy already with the ones that were tagged. --Amalthea 23:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I judge differently in enough cases that I'm giving them all

1 Disagree. google shows smashinpanda as a nick for a human. This is A7, not A1

2 Agree. This is a mixtape and does not fit in speedy , even in A9, and must go to prod. Agree. We could however argue for putting mixtapes in A9 as almost none are notable.

3 Disagree-- expand. "Isle of the Snake People" from Google is a well known movie with a NYT review. Easy to make a stub.

4 Agree, either context or nonsense.

5 Disagree, it is either either nonsense, G1. or A1, no context, , It does not go to prod. I checked Google and found no reasonable meaning for the word--if it had been, for example, a character in some fiction, then prod would have been right. Or did I miss it? If I saw it on prod, I would speedy it.

6 Debatable. I consider it as essentially nonsense-- playing with words in a meaningless fashion. If I saw it on prod I would leave it there, though.

7 Agree. Valid article if actually notable. Possible G7 as web content, but not nonsense.

8 Partially agree. Possibly valid article, depending on references. If a national office, i defend them at AfD. I do not prod these if major party candidates, even for state offices. Some admins interpret A7 as meaning no indication that is at all likely to stand up. I disagree, but they do have a point.

9 Agree. valid A1

10 Agree, but it could better be called A1, no context, than A7. If there is no way of knowing who the person is, there is no context. If it gave the school too, it would be A7.

11 Disagree, speedy, not prod. . it's schoolboy vandalism, G3. G10 is also justified, but I don't use it for stupid jokes, only things intended to be nasty. If I aw it on Prod, I would speedy it.

12 Disagree, I consider this to be meaningless. Calling it nonsense or no context makes very little different. Calling it G10 is wrong, it isn't really that abusive. Sending it to prod is unnecessary. I would deprod. If it is a possible G10, the alternative to speedy should be afd, not prod.

13 Disagree; this is like no. 10; when there is no way of knowing who is being referred to , it's nonsense, especially when it is not likely to be a personal name.

14 Disagree; I would ask for references, not prod. checking the "Washburn Guitars" article, Dimebag Darrell is in fact the name of a performer, & Stealth is a type of guitar made for him. This is a valid name of a particular guitar and is simply an incomplete article. it might just possibly be notable--probably not, but it needs further checking.

15 Agree, but maybe we do need a speedy for original fiction; the problem is to tell when it's an excerpt from actually published fiction. currently, this one is a prod. But I have seen similar articles as incomplete attempts to recount the plot of actually notable fiction & I've expanded and kept. .

16 Agree, but this is one of the cases where it could also be considered A7.

17 Agree. thIs almost certain a salvagable article. Not a prod. Tag for references.

18 Agree, couldn't find on Google, but if I had found it on Google, then if "moodisa" is the name of a website it's A7; if it's a program, it's for Prod. ,

19 Agree, Probably valid article, many good ghits in published sources, but might be objected to as a dicdef.

20 Agree, since I couldnt find on Google. If I could have, it would be a prod as a computer program.

What I do differently from Balloonman:

I am more willing to use G2, test page

I keep G3 vandalism, and G10 test page, for articles serious enough to deserve them

I do not prod when a tag for references is more suitable, because it may equally well get deleted at the end of the Prod when it is in fact rescuable

If I can not figure out who a person is, I consider it a valid A1, no context if it is very short

In doubt, I google, & decide what to do on that basis

My interpretation:

1. many things can validly fall in more than one category
2. many things that are clearly speedy deletable can be reasonably interpreted differently by different good people-- I disagree with 7 out of 20 decisions.
3. there are a number of clear errors by admins, that make no significant difference. 2, 6, 15 will surely be deleted.
4. a few admins do truly wrong single-handed speedy deletion. 7, 17, 19 are clear and unmistakable errors that make a difference, since they may well be kept. 19 is by an admin who IMHO sometimes does just this. 17 & 9 by different fairly reliable admin, who rarely do.. DGG (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

G1

My view on these:

1 Agree, erroneous G1, not nonsense. On the other hand, i would be tempted to call in vandalism, or A7 non-notable group. I would not prod, because it's hopeless.

2 Agree, nonsense, good speedy.

3 Partially Agree. Not nonsense in one sense, but hopelessly non-encyclopedic. . Possible A1, as no context. Not prod--find the closest applicable speedy reason.

4 Disagree a little: Either no context or nonsense, makes little difference

5 Agree, but I would use G2, test page.

6 Agree, nonsense is pretty close. I'd look for other articles by same person, to see if there is a pattern--might be vandalism.

7 Partially agree, either no context if unclear who is meant, or G10. Also could be called G3, vandalism

8 Agree, vandalism is the closest.

9 Disagree, clear G10, since the person is real, a/c Google. But it does not matter, the point is to get rid of it.

10 Disagree, nonsense would do--otherwise vandalism. I might be friendly , and just call it test.

11 Partially agree, vandalism would do better, but it is meaningless enough to also count as nonsense. . This is not a hoax, not plausible enough.

12 I'm not clear what the article was titled. Can't have been "Peru", for that's a valid existing article. Peruvian holidays? It is not nonsense. Depending on the title, a redirect sometimes works for things like this.

13 Disagree. This is the sort of totally obvious fake that does qualify as nonsense. Or call it vandalism. this should not go to prod.

14 Agree G10, probably. Or just test page. or vandalism.

15 Agree. Very bad speedy. Unpredictable whether it would be kept at afd, but certainly its at least a redirect.\

16 this is a problem. G10 as probable BLP violation, since its unsourced. I'm reluctant to use BLP, but it fits here. If there were good sources, it might be an article, but we must remove it until that point. If sent to afd, someone wouldspeedy it from there.

17 Agree, Clear no context, but I really do not see how it matters.

18 Disagree. Do not prod. Delete as test page. It's just someone playing round with their computer.

19 Disagree. If nonsense means anything at all, this is nonsense. Imight call it test. Idislike keeping t hings this stupid around for 5 days.

20 Agree, but I don't think it makes much difference.

21 Agree. Rocket propelled chainsaws are imaginary weapons, a/c Google, so this is either G10 or plain vandalism. A7 I keep for real things that arent remotely notable.

22 Agree. valid G1.

23 Disagree. Nonsense, not hoax. A hoax is something that might possibly be real; this does not include "red flying hippopotamuses".

24 Agree, but there are quite a few suitable categories.

25 Agree Valid G1.

Comments

1. I differ from Balloonman in being less willing to send totally unacceptable articles to Prod, especially if they are somewhat nasty. If the intention is vandalism in the broad sense of not being a good faith attempt at an article, whatever speedy category fits closest should be used. Now, I'm relatively very narrow in interpretation of speedy, and I still say this, so I think about 75% of admins would also. This is one of the purposes of speedy.
2. As Amalthea commented, G1 is used less wrongly than A1. only one serious error, 15 and one likely one, 12.
3. In many cases of possible G1, it fits into so many possible categories that it does not matter which one is used--just minor differences in interpretation. There is thus some rationale to the suggestion that A1 and G1 be combined. However, the many incorrect A1s indicate to me that it might perhaps be strategic to have it separate to more easily spot the errors
4. I continue to support requiring the involvement of two people in all cases except G10. Even copyvio needs two people--I have seen quite a number of incorrect copyvio speedies, where either only a part was copyvio, or it was important enough to stubbify, or--worst of all--when the copyvio was the other direction, or was PD not recognized as such.
5. The real problem is not in the misuse of on speedy criterion for another for a clearly unacceptable article, but the muse of speedy for articles that should not be deleted at all. DGG (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

G10

I just saw at WT:CSD that you did one on G10 as well. The cases there seem quite clear, so just a minor point with the fourth example: if the creator blanked then G7 fits better than A3. If an article has a non-no-content revision in its history it shouldn't typically be deleted A3. Of course, if the one revision that had content was clearly deleteable as a G10 then I'm also OK with calling an attack page an attack page.
BTW, I've left you a note at my talk page. Cheers, Amalthea 18:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

G10 was pleasantly uneventful. The only egregious cases I found were ones that were pointed out to me. I left the one that was blanked, because (if I remember correctly) it was blanked by the person placing the tag there. Eg they found an attack page and rather than leave the attack page, they blanked it and asked for speedy.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Your comment reads "creator blanked the page before being tagged". --Amalthea 18:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare's RFA

Unless I'm missing something, you closed NuclearWarfare's RFA based on this diff, but I read it as though he's saying he wanted that particularly discussion closed, not the RFA? Or were there other discussions with the candidate elsewhere? GTD 14:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ooops you're right... he also emailed me expressing his thoughts... and did post a comment immediately below my closing of the comment as well.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

?

What the hell just happened? – iridescent 17:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't know... I am, however, a little disappointed. I forwarded the warnings I received about IRC and told him that it might get nasty... but he came back sounding like he was fine. I never expected it to be closed after just 2 hours.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Your new criteria for opposing

Wow. I didn't see this until the full 20 minutes had passed. But to me it seemed at first glance to be an ok idea. What shocked me in the discussion was how many people have gone through name changes. It has never occurred to me to change my User Name. I can definitely understand how someone might need to do it for privacy reasons, but I really would have guessed that name changes would have been extremely rare.

Well, it was an interesting idea. Hope your bleeding has now stopped. Unschool 04:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It didn't bother me... it was a trial balloon---man. I'll probably look very closely at people's names now to see if there has been a name change, and focus on the area around said name changes... I've seen too many people change their names lately that it raises the question of who has changed it and why? I suspect that 99.9% of name changes are done for legit reasons, but the unintended result of a name change is that people who were looking for the old name may never notice it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

At RfA, things tend to go wrong when we go by criteria rather than intention - I completely agree that editors who deliberately attempt to conceal their closets (knowing that they are seen by some editors as 'oppose on sight') should be hung out to dry, but giving bright-line criteria poses problems to genuine cases (privacy, shortening names). It's also like how editors agree that candidates should have content contributions, but will baulk at a requirement of writing a Featured Article. I guess it comes down to the way we express ourselves in this rather-political process. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 02:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I replied...

I have replied to your comments on my talk page. Thanks for dropping by. :) NoSeptember 21:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw thanks.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Your essay on CSD

I have to say that normally I don't read many essays on Wikipedia but came across this and thought it really hit the nail on the head. The folks that look to speedily delete other people's articles often are not thoughtful about what they are doing. I came across a particularly frustrating one yesterday. I luckily happened to be on and spotted an article of interest get tagged. I was able to intervene and help out but 99 times out of 100 it would have been gone and the person writing it would probably be done with wikipedia. I had my own issues with a guns-blazing admin when I was just starting in the project and was fortunate to come across people who kept me from getting discouraged. You are doing a good service.

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your tremendous work on raising awareness of the standards in place for speedy deletions and drawing attention to the inconsistent quality of work from certain practitioners of CSD |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 05:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks this makes my day... I too had my own encounters with speedy deleters early on... if it wasn't for my wife (who was already an admin at the time) I wouldn't be here.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Please stop tagging pages with the AfD template for the Devon Kennard article. The AFD only belongs on that page. Thanks. BlueAg09 (Talk) 07:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm guessing Balloonman is trying to make one enormous AfD for all college football players. That's actually what I was coming to ask, as you've popped up on my watchlist several times now. This should be interesting. - auburnpilot's sock 07:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. BlueAg09 (Talk) 07:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Now, this is better. Your page will no longer will be flooded with AfD content :) BlueAg09 (Talk) 11:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It's really quite simple, and I'm not sure where the disagreement comes from. Every Division I FBS football player meets WP:ATHLETE as that policy is currently written. "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." Much as some wish it did, that line does not say (and consensus has rejected this addition) that a given sport must not have a professional league in order for amateurs to count. Division I FBS football is the highest amateur level of football, and therefore these players meet that guideline. Furthermore, every college player you nominated had considerable coverage in sources and would easily meet WP:N anyway. If you're trying to prove a WP:POINT, perhaps it's better not to do it by attempting to delete the starting quarterback of perhaps the most renowned school in college football history. Oren0 (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Tyler‎.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Look man, all of the example articles you give on that page as evidence of consensus are athletes that failed both WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. The fact that some of the participants only said "fails WP:ATHLETE" doesn't mean that you should go find a bunch of players that fail WP:ATHLETE but meet WP:N to put up for deletion.--2008Olympian^chitchat 04:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding your multiple AfD submissions, if you read the text at the guideline preceding the WP:ATHLETE section, you'll note that it clearly states "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability". All of the articles you have nominated meet WP:N. You might want to consider withdrawing your nominations. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell if it's ignorance, some genetic opposition to Div-I college football, or some combination of the two, but please put the axe down and get off your horse. I would understand your argument if you were deleting articles for walk-ons on no-name teams. Instead, in Pryor and Clausen, you have chosen the number 1 ranked players in their class. Pryor has been called the best high school athlete ever. They both start for teams that have a larger following than most NFL teams. I just don't get it. Rusty (talk) 06:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to comment my disapproval here as well. While you are certainly a fine fine editor, these AfDs were very very poor. Most have ample sources to pass WP:N, while the fact that they are Division 1 athletes passes WP:ATHLETE - as the highest level of amateur competition for their sport. They are on the same level as many Olympic athletes and in many cases, more notable. Grsz¹¹ 03:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

As I've already said several times in the discussions I'm fine with their being closed at this point. Despite some bity claims to the contrary, they were made in good faith based upon past AfD's (granted from a year ago or so) wherein the criteria were being interpretted differently. Consensus seems to have changed, I'm fine with that... but I am not fine with some of the rude comments that people have been making (and no this isn't directed at you Grsz). But I'm fine with their being closed.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume the utmost good faith on your part. If Olympic athletes are notable (and I'm sure all will agree that they are), there needs to be a way for amateur American football players to fit into WP:ATHLETE. Grsz¹¹ 04:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree which is why I have no problem with their being closed. Consensus has changed, it used to be used to eliminate all articles on college/minor league players. I'm just amazed at some of the comments people are making (including via email!) Shows a complete lack of class has settled in among some users at AfD.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Bearucratship

Hi! I was looking through with your essays and stuff like that, and I suddenly have the urge to nominate you to be a bearucrat. I would perfer asking for your consent before proceeding, since being denied by the nominee is quite embarrasing! Leujohn ^(talk) 11:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I noticed that you are a admin coach. If you have the time, would you mind if you coached me? Thanks in advance. Leujohn ^(talk) 11:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I am highly honored that you would think so highly of me, but at this time I would have to decline. I say this for a few reasons. First, I am not qualified. While I am strong in RfA and RfA is the most visible aspect of being a crat, I have virtually no experience in user names and bots. Both of which are expected---especially the user name. Second, an RfB for me would surely fail. Take a look around my edits around the end of May/Early June. I made a major blunder then. IMHO, it will take 18-24 months to redeem myself from that mistake to the point where I would consider running.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 61/52/7; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message! Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Dendodge TalkContribs, 17:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Heads up re the football AfD thing

It was brought up in this RfA, around Oppose #8. This is just a courtesy notify, feel free to delete this entry. Townlake (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks, I've never been tempted to watchlist future RfA's, but this one is a contender. There is only ONE reason why he would bring up my RfA's there, and that is to try to embarrass me. If I remember correctly, we had a little encounter a few months ago. I know this isn't my first time to see the tool and I remember I wasn't impressed with him last time I saw him. Of course, I wish I could remember it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: you might be interested

Hi Balloonman! Thanks for bringing up the discussion; Based on his comments, I already like this candidate! Having said that, I don't think you should egg him on so much for adminship :) you suggested that he should write some content, and he did (not too bad at all!) which is great, and I hope he likes it and continues writing. But as I said before, I'm opposed to any form of coaching, including basing the discussion entirely on how well he would do in an RfA. Instead, maybe make it sound more like friendly advice from a more senior editor :) I certainly believe that if he focuses on contributing, as he has done so far (even if it's not article building), and not cheating the process, then someone will eventually take the initiative and nominate him, and he will pass if he's ready at that point. If not, maybe some other time—just like being an admin isn't a big deal, not being one isn't a big deal either.

In any case, I don't think there anything I can contribute to the discussion, but it was an interesting read. Thanks! Just make sure to tell him to include a link to his user, talk or both, in the signature. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)