User talk:I'm Spartacus!/archive 2

Feedback

I left you some feedback yesterday for your article. Yesterday, I also nominated my first FAC. If you have time leave some feedback at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 18:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

I'll take a look at it, I'm an occassional FAC reviewer as I'm trying to get this article to FAC status. Your comments were GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREAT!!! Wow, that wasn't intended, but in light of your name, that's kinda humerous ;-) Balloonman 18:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

:)

Truth be told, it was actually pretty random. :-) I got tired of getting the messages about a role account. LaSaltarella 07:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• How is it going? I am finishing up the work on the OWU article. Everybody seems to be happy with the progress but I am in no hurry. What have you been working on? LaSaltarella 22:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Packing. I'm in the process of getting ready to move to Houston on Wednesday... and haven't had time to look at much of anything... pretty much all I'm doing on WIKI right now is checking to make sure nobody has left me any messages and that nobody has vandalized an article I'm watching... I have been noticing the positive reviews of OWU on your page and the OWU page... I want to take a look at it, but I just haven't had a chance... I'll probably print your OWU article to read it on my tripBalloonman 08:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you! I want to ask you for a favor. Can you look at Template:Ohio_Wesleyan_University and [[1]]. Tell me which one you like better or if you have any suggestions? LaSaltarella 01:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Will do this weekend... I am on a business trip right now and won't have permanent access until this weekend...Balloonman 23:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I do, too. For the same reasons that you mentioned. Plus I tried to include red and black in it for the obvious reasons. The problem is when I asked the two editors from the copy editing league, the said that they preferred the older one. Maybe I should put it to vote and see what most people have to say. What do you think? LaSaltarella 07:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
          • They may be slightly more "neutral" but if those who look at the cites like the newer one, I'd go with the newer version... the "copy editing league editors" don't have to live with it (EG they aren't paying any attention to it.)Balloonman 07:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Brat

Just had a quick look - what happened to the fabulous lead you had a few weeks ago? It's grown way too long, and it's overreferenced. Except for extraordinary claims, references should be in the body of the article, which should be summarized in the lead. Have a look at WP:LEAD - it was better before. It looks now like you're trying to prove something in the lead - the lead should be a stand-alone summary of the article, simple, compelling.

Also unclear what you're doing with the "unknown" references.

Another thing to keep in mind; every single footnote doesn't have to be listed in the References section If you're only quoting a dictionary entry once, just put that directly into the footonte, and leave it out of References. References is for *main* references or sources that are used over and over - sources used only once or twice can just be listed directly in the Footnotes - the reader doesn't need to look two places to see a simple dictionary ref. Will check more later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback... I went back and found an older version of the intro and modified it... I didn't realize that you thought I had a fabulous lead... I thought you were going to criticize it for being too short ;-) Balloonman 08:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember which version I liked, but I know I really liked the lead at some point. Hey, I've got a lot of pending travel coming up, and will have sporadic internet access, so my responses over the next few months won't be as quick as usual - just to let you know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh for gosh sakes, someone put an unreferenced tag at Military brat; I'm sure you can fix it with a few sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot. If you ever get a free minute here on Wikipedia, I would be most honored if you wrote a critique of my contributions at my Editor Review, found here. Thanks in advance dude. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

How goes the Brat?

How is your work with Military Brat going? S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 04:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Been on a break for a while while moving, but now I've got internet connection and will probably nominate it for FAC this weekendBalloonman 05:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Nominated military brat for FAC... feel free to join in the coversation.Balloonman 09:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I read it on the plane on my recent trip - I guess I should have left you a message sooner, but I didn't expect you to return and nominate it so fast without first checking in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Brat

I'll try to make some more comments soon.

The class thing is difficult. No, you shouldn't use awkward or neologistic terms ("rankism") that aren't in the literature, but class and rank do need to be held seperate. Rank can be constructed as an explicitly anti-class structure: s/he is your superior officer regardless of family background, race, etc. In the British Empire, the enlisted/officer division was an outcome of class (commissions could be purchased, AFAIK, and the country was notoriously classist to begin with); in the American military, I'd suggest it's a shibboleth that class (in the typical sense) is supposed to have nothing to do with rank.

Anyhow, your changes address this. Marskell 08:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... it was a good criticism, I wasn't sure if the edits handled it or not...Balloonman 08:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to think my youth hasn't quite ended :). But no, the travel wasn't done with parents so I wouldn't qualify as a TCK. I did live a year in London at 19, but under my own steam. And there are other commonalities: I am definitely an expatriot (also not our best page) at this point and don't actually have a home in Canada. It's a big world, so I don't mind it... Marskell 09:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Hi Balloonman,

I noticed your comment on the page that I worked on yesterday. Do you have any suggestions for improvements? I tried to make it comprehensive in topics and time, so I don't think there should be POV concerns but your opinion can always be improve the article. LaSaltarella 05:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at the article this weekend... the comment was made more as an FYI because I thought it might be something worth investigating... and you could probably get the details fairly easily.Balloonman 05:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate it. Your opinion should help me improve the article tremendously. I think it is already well-referenced and comprehensive. Did you move to the new place already? LaSaltarella 19:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Activism article

Wow, thanks for the comments! Very helpful! I will spend some time in the next few days and weeks addressing your concerns. LaSaltarella 22:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Another thing while I am here, could you move your comments to the formal Peer Review page? It will be easier for me to have them in a centralized place when I address them because other editors can/might leave comments on the PR page. LaSaltarella 22:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! You left me with a lot of homework. I will try to address your concerns. LaSaltarella 22:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Reading over Brat

Hey BM,

I've been waiting for some free time to go over the Brat article again before I comment on the FAC. A couple of things hit me right in the opening section that I'm hoping you could explain for me. One thing, not every military brat has traveled the world (other than Viet Nam, my dad was stationed stateside his entire career--the USAF is great that way), but of course has at least traveled the U.S. So perhaps clarify that most or almost all are world travelers, etc. Also, this phrase confused me: "Military brats are typically highly educated, outgoing, and patriotic. They are raised in a culture that emphasizes loyalty, honesty, discipline, and responsibility. Sometimes these values are so strong in an individual that they cease to be virtues and become weaknesses." How can patriotism, education, honesty, etc. become weaknesses? By definition they are positive virtues, are they not? That whole thing doesn't make sense to me. It next states that they feel like outsiders, but those virtues you listed should not be the cause. If you're speaking about different qualities than those I mentioned, then some sentences need to be moved around to make that more clear. Also, you end by saying, "This subculture cuts across other cultural identities." OK? That kinda just drops off the cliff there with no further explanation and apparently no reason for even being there in the first place. It seems completely random, tacked-on; it makes it almost sound like what you'd find in a dictionary rather than an encyclopedic entry. I would rewrite some of these for you instead of complaining, but I'm not really sure where you want to go with these so I'm asking first. --ScreaminEagle 21:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Patriotism is a positive for most people---especially those raised in the military community. But absolute patriotism, wherein the government can do no wrong can be a weakness. Education, can become such an overriding factor that people cease to relate. Honesty, ever hear of too much honesty? Yes, I highly treasure my patriotism/honesty/education, but they can be embraced so strongly that they cease to be virtues.

As for travelling the world, the studies I've seen show that between 80-95% of brats have lived overseas.

As for feeling like outsiders, you are a military brat, how important is patriotism to you? How important is it to those around you? What about honesty? The virtues mentioned are not indicative of feeling like part of the group.Balloonman 04:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's my point. The fact that you had to explain exactly what you meant perhaps suggests that a better explanation be provided than simply stating that these values can sometimes become weaknesses. The values-turned-weaknesses you're speaking of aren't readily obvious to readers who have not done the same research you have and that needs to be dealt with. (I realize you're getting it from all angles while the article is under scrutiny right now, but I am trying point out areas where the article can be improved and more easily read by non-brats.) Not everyone would think that brats, above all others, go to absolute extremes with these values (not just "strong values," which to most, are still considered a positive); you've only stated that sometimes the values turn to weaknesses, but not really how. I didn't find anything later in the article to suggest the answer to that either, so it should be answered better than it is now, preferrably where it was first mentioned. Strong values still suggests a positive--you need to put a negative word in there if you're suggesting a negative result. It would clear up some confusion.

And yes, I know the majority of brats have lived overseas, but not all of them--the sentence in the opening suggests all of them have. I was suggesting the sentence be changed to reflect the fact that most of them have lived overseas, not all of them.

My other concern was not about feeling like an outsider--I think that point has been well established and I was not questioning it. What I was asking was exactly how their values make them feel like outsiders (personally, I went to schools where most of my friends were highly educated, honest, disciplined people). Now, extreme values...that's something different.

And I still have a concern about that last sentence, about it cutting across other cultural identities. Could there be another sentence added to make that not seem like such an orphaned statement? It seems as if it was added out of obligation, not as part of the actual article. It doesn't seem to fit, especially given the information it's being thrown in with. It seems very out-of-text. --ScreaminEagle 20:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 13:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!

On getting Military brat (U.S. subculture) as a featured article. Just noticed it! Somebody wants to merge it with just Military brat though. --AW 07:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I wasn't expecting that... I thought it was going to fail... I've been working 16-20 hours per day for the past 3 weeks!!!Balloonman 15:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: on the importance of gender equality

Dear Balloonman,

Just for the record, I wanted to say that your last edit was gender-insensitive and I am not sure how to interpret it. That a school has only white males appointed as presidents is worth-noting. The media seems to find it newsworthy when a strong female U.S. presidential candidate runs and when a woman becomes the president of Harvard University. Somehow, in a society still full with a lot of gender disparity, people find it relevant. I am not sure what to say after having seen such a comment. LaSaltarella 07:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

And I disagree it is not notable. The reality of the situation is that virtually all presidents of four year colleges/universities are going to be white males. Is it a shame that is the case? Yes, but is it worth going out of the way to mention? No. Do other schools, such as the University of Oklahoma which has only had white males as its president make a point of it? Does Ohio University's page mention that it has only had males as it's president? Did it highlight the fact that it's current president was the first black president? No. Does OSU's main page mention that Karen Holbrook is their first female president and that they have never had a non-white president? No. Here's a challenge for you, find me another wikipage for a college or university that goes out of it's way to say "we've never had a non-white male" as our president. Inclusion here is POV; is it a shame that there aren't more minority presidents out there? Yes. Is it newsworthy in an individual institutions article? No.Balloonman 08:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

RE your edits since I wrote my response, the media does find it noteworthy when a person becomes president of Harvard (one of the most prestigious schools in the country) or a woman runs for president. But that doesn't mean that every school that hasn't had a person of color or a woman as president should mention it. Most schools haven't---again, I challenge you to find another school's page that mentions that fact.Balloonman 08:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dear Balloonman, thank you for the response! I appreciate your candidness! It is a valuable perspective that you provide and other people may choose to agree or disagree with it. I am not sure it will be productive for me to engage in this discussion further. Have a good night! LaSaltarella 08:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

FAC Maximus Confessor

There has been a great deal of improvement on the FAC Maximus. Please have a look at the article and see if it now meets the Featured Article criteria. Thanks for your comments, I think they have helped to make for a better article. -- Pastordavid 15:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and comments on the FAC for Maximus the Confessor. The discussion has closed, and the article has been promoted to Featured Article status. I think the article was greatly improved through the comments and suggestions offered in the nomination process, and was happy to see the process work so well. Again, thanks. -- Pastordavid 19:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Campbell's Soup Cans FAC2

How is Military brat (U.S. subculture) progressing? You were fairly vocal in FAC1 and have not chimed in on FAC2. Your comments and hopefully support are welcome. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the comment that you left on my Talk page! I wasn't surprised that the article passed. Having said that, I should acknowledge that it was the League of Copyeditors that did most of the hard work in the beginning of the year. Your comments definitely helped me to improve the article. Thank you again! LaSaltarella 05:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

like I said, I had a few concerns, but once those were addressed I was gonna vote for it... only it passed first ;0Balloonman 23:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Boy Scouts FAC

RE Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boy Scouts (Boy Scouts of America), what is your suggestion for the layout on law, motto, etc? I really can't think of anything else.Rlevse 15:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've given this some thought. I REALLY don't like the way things are. So here are the ideas that I had. First, you could make it into two columns, this would consolodate the area---but I don't like this idea. The solution that I think I like the best would be to reduce the section to a short statement about how the Law, Oath, Motto, Outdoor Code, are pillars for scouting. Then, rather than listing the items back to back to back, use them similar to the way pictures aer used to break up the article as a whole. Perhaps give them a different font/sizing/etc.Balloonman 03:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

take a look now.Rlevse 22:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Much better... but now the section where they were needs to be cleaned up some... it's not elegant prose.Balloonman 22:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Try now.Rlevse 22:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Sources are not only from BSA, in fact, most aren't. Ex, USSP is not a BSA entity.Rlevse 09:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Campbell's Soup Cans FAC2

Previously you stated support at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans if Fair use could be resolved. Fair use issues have been resolved and debate has been reset. I would appreciate confirmation of your support. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 18:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

FAC Ebionites

I've worked on the lead of and dumbed down some sentences in it and in the rest of the Ebionites article. Unless you have other specific recommendations to improve the article, can you drop your opposition to the FAC of the Ebionites article? --Loremaster 19:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Nom

You nominated First Command Financial Planning, Inc. in the Education section of the candidates page, did you mean to do this?--Joebengo 21:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

ooops... no it was to go under companies/organizations... I just moved it.Balloonman 21:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which....

On April 20, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article First Command Financial Planning, Inc., which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Well done and all the best with the GAC! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin Tilley

I have incorporated the changes that you have suggested. Can you please take a look and tell me if the prose reads better now? If you have any further suggestions for how I can improve this article, please let me know. JRP 15:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

A-Class reviews

Just to let you know, from WP:MHR#A-CLASS:

In particular, objections over relatively minor issues of writing style or formatting should be avoided at this stage; a comprehensive, accurate, well-sourced, and decently-written article should qualify for A-Class status even if it could use some further copyediting.

Thanks! :-) Kirill Lokshin 05:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Great main page today

Good work to all of the editors who edited and cheered this article to FA status. (Reply on my talk page, but no need to reply.) KP Botany 00:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Re "diplo-brat"

Hi Balloonman,

...it is not relevant to the article and isn't accurate. As the articles principle writer, I NEVER came across that term.

It's new to me too, but I wasn't feeling as bold!  Thanks for your message, David (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
PS Thanks also for your work on a worthy featured article.

No problem... thank you for your continued help in improving it.Balloonman 02:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Brats in school.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Brats in school.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That helping hand

Sorry to see that Military Brat (US Subculture) has become the subject of an FAR. I have notified the Military History WikiProject and the related task forces and updated the announcement templates since whats-his-name didn't do that when he created the FAR page, so you should see some "in house" editors there soon. Thought you might like to know. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: The FAR page has been axed! Aparently, it was a bad faith nom, and has been deleted (for now). TomStar81 (Talk) 08:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!

Just saw Military brat as today's featured article, awesome! --AW 20:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yikes

Just dropped by to sympathise about some of the (expletive deleted!) that's being posted on the Military brats (U.S. subculture) talkpage. Well done for getting the article to the front page, and for remaining calm under fire! 4u1e 22:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

thank you, I've learned that when others go ballistic, it is best to point out their rude behaviour and respond rationally. I think the person who did the most to squelch the criticism was the guy who made every post an ad hominem attack.Balloonman 22:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

With enemies like these, who needs friends..... 4u1e 07:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

For You

For grace under fire on Military brat (U.S. subculture)

This is for you. As far as I am concerned, you have more than earned it. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'd just like to offer you my continued support for your work on these pages. You've done a good job of making your points clear without being uncivil or rude. I just wish I had more hope for your reasoning being heeded. Anyway, good show. FrozenPurpleCube 05:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured Portal nomination

Hey,

Since you do so much work with FAs, I thought your input would be valuable in the Fish Portal's featured portal nomination. Thanks! --Ginkgo100^talk 19:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured Portals is not something that I am familiar with... and wouldn't feel comfortable voting on that subject.Balloonman 19:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

re: fictional military brat list

Looking over it a second time, I'll agree with you that there was no consensus. I'll make a reply when they're restored. Zsinj^Talk 23:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Zsinj^Talk 23:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad I was able to help and I'm glad you found another source! Zsinj^Talk 14:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

First Command article

I mean no offense if you are partial to this company, but I experienced one of the their "free dinner" pitches about 10 years ago when I was in the military. Fortunately, being a business major, I recognized right away what they were doing and declined to pursue an account with them, much to their very unconcealed displeasure. Some of my fellow servicemen, though, who didn't have much knowledge of investing, went with them and told me later that they regretted it. I'm not surprised that the company got in trouble later and I'm glad that you wrote this article about them. Cla68 00:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

contact

Contact is a new service and honor the milhist project has introduced. I want to suggest you as a possible contact. Could you please name some subjects you are quite familiar with and willing to help(answer questions, reviews) within our scope. Wandalstouring 10:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for the supportive comments at Marquette Building (Chicago). I noticed you made WP:TFA with military brat. Campbell's Soup Cans made it as well. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem... I am very reluctant to delist an article as GA if the article is heading in the right direction... and it is clear that this one is.Balloonman 19:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Once again, thank you for all your help three months ago and your wonderful suggestions that have been so helpful! Thank you! LaSaltarella 05:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Dear Balloonman,

I encourage you to follow the established practice of professional engaging in a thoughtful discussion on the controversial issue on the talk page. I understand you have your own perspective on the issue. Nevertheless, legitimate references tracing the controversial issue have been provided. Thank you for your time! LaSaltarella 07:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

And your edits fail to recognize the facts. Plus, you are clearly in violation of 3RR now.Balloonman 07:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Balloonman, please explain what you mean. In improving the article, I followed the only legitimate book source that has traced the affiliation and have encouraged others to read it. Again, I encourage you to provide other references that dispute the information provide in Burtchaell's book. LaSaltarella 07:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Burtchaell is a secondary source... who is advocating a position. The university acknowledges the affiliation and the church recognizes the affiliation. Until such time that one of those parties involved disbands the affiliation, the affiliation exists. Any other position is contrary to the fact that the campus' own website/history and the church recognize the affiliation. That's a fact... not an opinion or position.Balloonman 07:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Your perspective on what constitutes a fact is very much appreciated. The academic source that published Burtchaell's book legitimized a very careful academic study of what the affiliation meant over the years. I very much encourage you to read the academic book sourse, which you may or may not have done? Again, you are entitled to your opinions and choice of what constitutes a primary source. LaSaltarella 07:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The schools website is a primary source. The United Methodist Churches website is a primary source. Those aren't opinions, those are facts. As is the affiliation. You are hanging your argument on your interpretation of single authors interpretation. BTW, it isn't vandalism you have to Assume Good Faith.Balloonman 07:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sad to see that you jumped quickly to characterizations that some may not view as the most constructive on a tough issue. Sigh. At the end, it will be a matter of how a word is defined, and whose perspective is used. I know you are a very experienced editor and I respect your contributions on non-controversial articles. I assume nothing but good faith, which is why I try to engage in constructive and positive discussions of dealing with a tough issue. LaSaltarella 07:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You're making the reversions claiming vandalism. You're reversions are making that claim---it isn't vandalism. It is NOT vandalism when there is legitimate discussion/debate. Vandalism assumes malicious intent---and when you make that claim in reverting something you disagree with you are not assuming good faith. As for how a word is defined, it isn't up to us to define that word. It is up to the parties involved---in this case the university and the church. They have defined the word to mean that they are affiliated.Balloonman 08:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

LOL---My talk page has been vandalized (and no I do not believe it has anything to do with the above conversation) the vandal's edits are more widespread and I don't believe LaSaltarella would do that. But I feel as if I've finally made it to the big league---my page has been vandalized!!!

This report at WP:AN3

Good afternoon (GMT time); thank you for the report (linked above) at WP:AN3, regarding LaSaltarella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). First off, I've handled the report, the outcome of which you may be interested in. Secondly, I'd like to bring the following to your attention:

Internal Links

• If linking to a page within Wikipedia:

[[Example]], or [[Example|Example]]

External Links

• If linking to a page outwith Wikipedia:

[http://www.google.co.uk Google]

...please note that there is only *one* square bracket, as oppose to two (for an internal link).

Thanks for your co-operation, and if you have any questions about linking (or queries about my decision regarding LaSaltarella (talk · contribs), don't hesitate to give me a shout at my talk page).

Kind regards,
Anthony 11:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

OWU

Hey Balloonman, glad to see that another member of the university community has taken such an active interest in the OWU article. I was proud today to show some of my friends that our university was featured on the main page today, including my father, who is also an alumnus of the institution. Regardless of the debate going on at OWU's talk page about whether or not it's "affiliated" with the UMC, I would love to "talk OWU" with you some time. When did you graduate, what kind of stuff did you do, were you affiliated with a Greek organization, and whatnot. Hope to hear from you some time! Warmest regards, bwowen ^T/C 04:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Class of 91... I was able to visit the campus a year or two ago and was shocked that some of the benches that were broken when I was there appeared to have never been fixed (namely those outside of Smith Hall.) The campus has undergone a lot of changes since I was there---namely the new Union Building was just being built and the walking path was a street.Balloonman 05:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

My first reaction to that was "There are benches outside of Smith?" So, apparently, they have been so infrequently used that I don't even notice them. There have been some nice renovations of late - Smith Dining Hall received a complete overhaul this year and now is really top-notch, there's a new student center in the old ATO house (which has thankfully been renovated), and a bunch of other stuff. You were there the year that Ham-Will was finished, weren't you? It's such a huge hub for student life now that I can't imagine living without it. If you're on campus at all this year, let me know.. I'll show you around. I am a tour guide, after all! bwowen ^T/C 05:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Registered Historic Places in Coconino County, Arizona

As you pointed out, I did act improperly in reinstating the above list. I re-deleted it, and before I could comment on the AfD page, I was edit conflicted with thepoundbhammer, closing the debate. I have started a conversation at deletion review, if you wish to comment there. Dsmdgold 04:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good... I don't think that it deserved to be deleted in the first place... and if you weren't personally involved with the article, I wouldn't have had a problem with your undeleting the article. (Admins undelete articles all the time, when they believe they have been speedied inproperly/) But as you were personally involved with the article, you shouldn't have done so. Good luck on the reinstatement.Balloonman 04:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, because PROD undeletion is ministerial, there probably wasn't anything wrong with his Dsm's undeletion (toward which, see my note at TPH's talk). In any case, the article will now be undeleted and may be listed at AfD, and so the issue is settled; I write only to clarify a bit the proposed deletion process. Cheers, Joe 07:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with DSM's undeletion was that he was personally involved with said article. If he had another, unaffiliated editor undelete it, I wouldn't have objected. But since he was an involved party, it was IMHO inappropriate for him to do so.Balloonman 20:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I could make reasonable technical arguments on both sides of this debate. But if you don't mind my interjecting, the purpose of the deletion processes (PROD and CSD and AfD and DRV) is to improve the overall quality of Wikipedia, the encyclopedia, by making sure that good material is kept and inappropriate material is removed. Where there is pretty much universal agreement that an article deserves to be kept, I respectfully submit that it's not a good use of the community's time to put something through two rounds of reviews because someone technically pushed the wrong button. Your point that the administrator shouldn't have done it exactly this way could have been made with a note on his talkpage. Just my thoughts for what they are worth. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And I'm not making this into a big issue... It's a done deal wherein all parties are satisfied. He reverted his own undeletion and made it "right" thus it is a dead issue. He recognized that there was a better way to do it and to preserve the integrity of the system, so I'm happy. He got it reverted, thus he's happy.Balloonman 23:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Usernames for administrator attention

I just wanted to let you know that ‎Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention‎ is just for reporting inappropriate usernames. It sounds like what you need is Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Read what it says there, but don't list the user until you've given the proper warning levels. Good luck. --Bongwarrior 05:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Aquaman

On May 9, 2007 you critiqued Aquaman (TV program). I was wondering if you could return to review the article again. Lots of copy editing has taken place since your visit, and I think that I may need to get some of your opinions on the reaction section. I tried to tone down the article on the "look how good this is" aspect of your concern, though the reaction section only has limited reviews and IGN was the only negative review that I could come across. I was hoping that you could provide some more insight into how (if you still believe it does) to correct the overly positives. Maybe just trimming out so that we just have a couple of positives and the one negative? I'm not sure. Any suggestions would be wonderful (but I know it isn't your duty to make them during an FAC).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Response

... is on my Talk page. Joie de Vivre 06:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

... there are now references. Joie de Vivre 06:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate Image:Tech. Sgt Pattee meets daughter.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Tech. Sgt Pattee meets daughter.jpg, by Pmsyyz, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Tech. Sgt Pattee meets daughter.jpg is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Tech. Sgt Pattee meets daughter.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Tech. Sgt Pattee meets daughter.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 06:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate Image:Tech. Sgt. Troy Goodman is there for birth of daughter.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Tech. Sgt. Troy Goodman is there for birth of daughter.jpg, by Pmsyyz, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Tech. Sgt. Troy Goodman is there for birth of daughter.jpg is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Tech. Sgt. Troy Goodman is there for birth of daughter.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Tech. Sgt. Troy Goodman is there for birth of daughter.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 06:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor FA

I've left a comment at Featured Article Review noting some problems, at least one a fundamental one ro WP. Perhaps you'd care to respond?

On another point, having noted your interest auditing, I've a quesiton about that field. Perhaps you'd be willing to enterain an exchange of views? ww 12:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:Creaven07

Having looked over the GAA articles he created they seem fine ,it looks like this user started to add gibberish when he created Seán Kearns (Gnevin 07:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

TFD/WP:NFL link

It's at the bottom of this section: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Depth charts. Pats1 12:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks will change vote to go along with consensus of the project---as I indicated I would.Balloonman 14:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Advice: Harbour/Harbor

Hi again - a different 'H' word this time ;) Hope you don't mind me asking your advice; as a regular GA reviewer I thought you might be able to help out. I have referred to the battle of Pearl Harbour in an article I wrote, which is in British English. Should I keep 'Harbor' as the US spelling, since it's not just a noun but the proper the name of a US facility, or should I go with 'Harbour' as per following the original English variant of the article? My gut feeling is the former, but I can't find a relevant policy anywhere (I'm sure there is one but damned if I can see it!). Regards EyeSerene^TALK 23:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Per the Manual of Style the article should be written in American English, An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular national region uses the appropriate variety of English for that country. Now, I'm not a stickler for nationalities of English, because in all honesty I look more at content/flow/and tone. But if you are going to leave the article in British English, I would use the American English spelling for Harbor because it is a pronoun for an American location. If I was writing an article on two specific harbors---one English and one American, I'd use both spellings because they are proper names.Balloonman 02:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The article's about Military simulation, a global rather than American subject; it just refers to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Thanks for the advice though, I'll stick with the US spelling. Cheers! EyeSerene^TALK 16:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Joseph James

That's a different Joseph James, someone placed a redirect at Joseph James. --Coredesat 00:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

Thanks for the notes. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)