User talk:I'm Spartacus!/archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

CSD G1 Updates[edit]

Hi there Balloonman. I've noticed that you have mentioned several times, the misuse of {{db-g1}} by New Page Patrollers. I wondered what you thought of the new G1 wording that I added to the template tonight. Do you have any suggestions, by any chance? - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 04:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It is straight from the policy... no problem with it.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
NuclearWarfare, changes like this should always at least be announced at WT:CSD. If you only change the tag then it won't affect the description shown to Twinklers and Hugglers or the notices given to the editors (manually, by twinkle or by huggle) which might need to be changed accordingly.
In this case, if "patent nonsense" is too abstract, what you'll really want to change is what is shown to Twinkle-Taggers, which is where I guess most incorrect tags come from. Twinkle at the moment only gives the list of criteria with a very short description, for the one at hand simply "G1: Nonsense". The full description is only one tooltip away, but it's not surprising that this is misapplied regularly. I agree that it should at least be changed to "Patent nonsense or gibberish" there. If you want to change the tagline, it should be changed in the policy first though.
Cheers, AmaltheaTalk 15:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, you've included a link to Proposed Deletion for a Hoax, which is a rejected proposal, not a policy. – iridescent 15:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
One other thing, I don't think "completely not understandable" is better, we already have enough math pages tagged as lacking context, I don't want them to be tagged with "completely not understandable" instead. :) --AmaltheaTalk 15:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the input Amalthea/Iridescent.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 15:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Pardon my butting in, but while patent nonsense isn't optimal, completely not understandable is ungrammatical. Perhaps good use could be made of a word like "gibberish" or "gobbledygook". —Scheinwerfermann T·C15:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
"Incomprehensible" – iridescent 16:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I had just started a cycle of being bold, and even noted that in one of my edit summaries. I have updated db-g1 slightly since then, and will also start a discussion on WT:CSD right now. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

AIV-Ace, Defender of the Wiki Barnstar[edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For reporting your fifth vandal to WP:AIV, thus making you an AIV-Ace, I award you this Defender of the Wiki Barnstar. It was an unfortunate oversight that nobody noticed, until now, that you became an AIV-Ace on 13 August 2007 with your fifth report. In order, they have been: [1][2][3][4][5]. Bravo on a job well done! And smile, it's just another manic Monday :) --Hammersoft (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh no... don't tell me that the Award Center has been revived! OH.... The HORROR!!!!---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Ve have vays of awarding barnstars even if ve have been censored! <maniacal laughter> --Hammersoft (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I seriously considered placing a {{Vandal3|User talk:Balloonman}} on your talkpage for the above... but decided that some inoccent bystander might see it and think it was real...---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, but collateral damage is the best kind! :) --Hammersoft (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


Acknowledgment[edit]

I got your message. I just wanted to remove it myself so I could say I withdrew at my own wish and with a sense of control over my own destiny on here. Sorry if I upset you. AdirondackMan (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Per this message I went ahead and modified the close reason for you.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 02:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There, it is done. I removed myself. AdirondackMan (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Blank.jpg[edit]

I appreciate that you reviewed the events that surrounded the Blank.jpg with respect to User:Spinningspark's SSP. You seem to have accurately perceived the events that led us to where we are today. Forgive me if I am incorrect in my reading of your comments, but I am not sure if you are aware that Spinningpark filed both an SSP and later a checkuser: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BreakEvenMatt, naming all of the same individuals in the original SSP. Your comments here only referred to the SSP, and I wanted to make sure you were aware of the most recent development. I appreciate that you recommended that the SSP be withdrawn, and I would ask that you extend that recommendation to the currently-pending checkuser.

I do have some very serious concerns regarding whole incident that I hope to further discuss with you, but I would like that discussion to wait until the checkuser is resolved. Cheers! --HoboJones (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I had thought about commenting there, but was hoping to give SS the chance to do the right thing first... but he hasn't edited in over a day.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 23:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Just a heads-up, I have cross-posted your comments above to the checkuser. Socking is a very serious accusation, and I am taking this accusation very seriously. I am becoming frustrated that after 3+ days no no action has been taken by any of the checkuser clerks.
By the way, I do appreciate your work on admin coaching, and I think that path to adminship should be emphasized. Regards, --HoboJones (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

RE:Paste's RfA[edit]

No, I didn't, and I apologized to him. Also, would you please kindly delete this edit Jonathan321 (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

we can't delete edits... there is a group that can oversight them, but only in egregious cases. Plus, at RfA, the accepted norm is simply to strike through them. I'll adjust it per your comments here.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 02:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Military brat[edit]

Thanks for your quick reply; I've replied myself. I can see this is an issue that has been discussed many times before, so I'm sorry for bringing it up again, but I just don't think the current title is ideal. Terraxos (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No it's not, but there is no better alternative. Trust me, we tried not having it, and it was plagued with numerous tags.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 23:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

My reaction when you offered to nom me for RfA was surprise; my reaction on reading your nom statement was shock and awe. By giving me a push, you saved me a lot of time and worry. Thanks for the work you've done for me and everyone else you've nommed. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

NP, thought you were ready, and so did the rest of the community. You Deserved it.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 04:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Thanks. Were my comments to Eastlaw too harsh? He seems to have bailed shortly after. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
It was ok. You explained your reason with some compassion. Eastlaw probably did get a raw deal in this RfA, but the problem is that he would have encountered worse as an Admin... and he did show a bity side in his response. It's a shame, he probably would have made a decent admin, but that's life. Hopefully he'll try again, but for some reason I doubt it.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

RfA withdrawal[edit]

Thanks for your talk page comment. It bothers me that a few trolls or ill-meaning editors can just derail an entire process, and no one steps in to defend the candidate--and at the same time, the candidate is barred from defending himself. That seems like a fundamental flaw in the process.

For the record, I have collaborated with a number of administrators and long-time contributors at Wikipedia (whose names I will not mention here), (especially at WP:LAW and its related projects), and have had nothing but good relations with all parties involved. Were they on WP at this time, they would certainly have given me their unqualified support. The fact that obvious ill-meaning editors can pick a fight, and having the other onlookers side with them rather than actually examine my record, is totally unfair. I'm not sure exactly how much good I would be able to do as an admin (and for a long time, I actively avoided admin discussions and nominations), but it just seems to me that the entire process makes no sense and is biased against candidates who, in most cases, would do a good job. We're supposed to be building an encyclopedia here, not a social club. --Eastlaw (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm a believer that the community will often step forward and defend candidates against raw allegations. The Candidate and Nom are in a no-win situation... a vigorous defense by either of them is seen as tainted (This is part of the reason why I don't like to see more than 2 noms) They are biased. But if the allegation is unfounded, then the community will respond. The userbox topic has been an issue before. Personally, I have no problem with neutrally worded user boxes. "I am a Catholic" "I am an Athiest" "I support Obama" "I'm a Republican." The problem comes in with user boxes that aren't neutral, "Papist are doomed to hell" "People who believe in God are stupid" "Obama is a socialist without morals" "Republicans should be wiped off the planet." Userboxes that advocate a position, at the expense of others, are the ones that generate controversy. Which is what yours did. If you had let the community respond, it might have caused a little stir, but probably wouldn't have gone any place.
My userbox didn't say that "all religious people were bad" it said that the world would bea better place without such belief systems. That's two different things. --Eastlaw (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
When you started calling good faith opposes trolling and investigating the background of the person who made the oppose, that is when people started to question your fitness for the bit. I know it's hard, but sometimes you just have to hold your breath and ignore what others are saying... RfA is one of those times. If you had, then others would have looked at your history and if they found the allegations of incivility lacking, they would have said so. As it was, this was a case that quickly spiraled out of hand, and before we knew it, you had a black eye you probably didn't deserve.
I am sorry I misread your comment, I thought you said "I am militant about my beliefs" not "I am NOT militant"... if I had read it correctly, I might have responded differently myself. For that I do apologize.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 08:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Eastlaw's RfA[edit]

While I opposed and provided some reasoning, the events at his RfA - as well as a lot of RfA's that get snowballed/speedy-closed - have somehow prompted me to make an RfA talk page post you may be interested in (located here). Master&Expert (Talk) 07:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

...- - -...[edit]

Thanks for your remarks. I've answered on my Talkpage.    SIS  14:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Irids talk page message[edit]

OK, thanks very much, whenever you have the time I look forward to hearing from you. — Realist2 19:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I'm flattered. I didn't actually expect you to go as far as to want to nominate me, cheers :-). If it would be possible, could we postpone an RfA until next weekend. I have a huge amount of Uni work that needs to be in before the Christmas holidays. For the next week I won't be doing much more than checking my watchlist. I can spend the next week answering the compulsory questions and seeking some co-noms. If this is OK, let me know. Thank you once again. — Realist2 12:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan... I was actually thinking about you before you asked to be reviewed. I knew that you were interested previously and I've been keeping a casual eye on you ever since... and I've always had a solid opinion of what you've been doing... when I reviewed you last night, that opinion was only reinforced. RfA's are done at your convience/timing. There is no rush.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Cheers, OK. I'll send it live by Saturday, once again, thank you. — Realist2 16:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Noted, there won't be anymore. I have it on my watchlist. Thank you for the heads up. — Realist2 20:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm an ass? How dare you[edit]

You're quite right, I'm very much in favour of a much more adult level of discussion than has become the norm here on on wikipedia, so I can't ever imagine myself being upset or complaining about what you or anyone else thinks of me personally. You're also right that I don't understand wikipedia's civility policy, and likely wouldn't agree with it even if I did.

I only bother to say this because of this comment of yours: "... it might require our calling each other names before we get to the point where true collaboration can be achieved". I don't agree that name calling is necessary, but I strongly believe that being able to comment honestly without fear of the wiki civility police jumping in with both feet firmly missing the target will determine whether or not this project has a future. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It was more of a condensed way of saying, "we might have to come to an understanding" of how we need to interact before proceeding... but thought it was easier just to put it that way.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 00:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Why I hate Speedy Deleters[edit]

Makes sense to me (and I am a speedy deleter), but the title implies you hate the speedy deleters themselves -- reading the essay though, it seems it's more that you hate when speedy deleters use incorrect rationales or are impatient? Somno (talk) 06:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I kept it as "Why I hate Speedy Deleters" because I've used that cliche for a while. It is also catchy... half of marketting is to have a catchy label ;-) ---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
That's true, it is catchy. All you need now is a logo and your marketing campaign can take off! :) Somno (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking about one of three things... either some golden arches, a talking duck, or a caveman.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Why choose just one? I'm sure all three could be incorporated into one fantastic logo. In fact, I might stop editing the wiki now to go away and work on it. Wait a minute, "stop editing the wiki now"? That'll never happen, so I guess the logo's up to someone else... BTW, I appreciate your change that says you don't actually hate CSDers - that'll hopefully get rid of "complaints" like mine. Somno (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I am going to stop editing WP now... my bed is calling... goodnite all
Just wanted to say that I enjoyed your essay. I might not agree with all of it, but it's helpful. Good work! Majoreditor (talk) 07:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

My Essays---this is wikipedia folks![edit]

Several people have edited my latest essay, they all add the note, "I hope you don't mind." This is wikipedia, if I minded, I wouldn't have posted it here... I APPRECIATE the copy editing others do. So, if you've made improvement to "Why I hate speedy deleters" or any of my other essays, then I thank you for helping me out.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 07:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, pet peeve, I guess? I normally don't edit other editors' subpages. Useight (talk) 07:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Yup, today, December 6 is my birthday. Thanks for the wishes. So, I take it you won't ever forget my birthday now? :-) =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

nope... only if I forget my son's.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 15:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)[edit]

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Multiple noms[edit]

Hey B'man. This may seem a bit random, nothing has spurred it on really, just curious. I've read several times that you don't really like to see more than two nominations on an RfA. Can I ask why this is? I would have assumed multiple nominations would indicate greater community trust, if anything.

Cheers,

Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It's more from watching past RfA's and how the noms are received. Multiple noms is seen as a form of vote stacking. Imagine the RfA that is nomed by myself, SandyGeorgia, Pedro, WJBScribe, RyanPostwaite(sp), Giggy, and Bibliomaniac. Whenever somebody has 3 noms, it inevitably spurs the "Oppose, I don't like the sense that this RfA is being presented to us as a fait." You sometimes see the exact same thing with 3 noms. People opposing due to the number of noms. But it goes further than that. 2 people should be enough to convey trust and a proper vetting of the candidate. If there are more than 2, it can also send the sense of desparation. When I see 3 or more noms, I sometimes wonder, "Why so many? Are they trying to overwhelm me with numbers? What don't they want me to see?" Finally, more than 3 noms it limits the number of people who can provide unbiased retorts to opposes. When I first wrote, How to Pass an RfA, I talked about how the nom/candidate should keep their involvement in debates to a minimum. Let people not involved in the RfA get their hands dirty rebutting idiot opposes. If all of your supports are noms, then you are tying their hands or linking the RfA to more people who could wreck the RfA via their behavior.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I see, cheers, I was just curious that's all :) Thanks for the explanation. In future, when I post at a talk page, I generally watch that page too just in case people don't reply at my page, so there's no need for talkbacks :) Thanks again. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 07:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I do too, but I had to move this because of the death of a long treasured pet. I only put the talk back because I prematurely moved this to my archive.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 07:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see, well thanks for the heads up. Sorry to hear about your pet. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you say to a 4 year old[edit]

Rose-ringed Parakeet I IMG 9797.jpg

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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…[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.[edit]

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
  1. 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.
  2. OK
  3. 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.
  4. OK, unless the title gave context
  5. OK
  6. 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.
  7. OK
  8. OK
  9. OK
  10. OK
  11. 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.
  12. Obviously not a CSD. I'm not even seeing the hoax?
  13. 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.
  14. OK
  15. OK
  16. OK
  17. OK, unless the title gave context
  18. PROD as WP:OR
  19. borderline G3, or PROD as an uncontroversial deletion (which is actually what WP:HOAX suggests)
  20. OK
  21. OK
  22. OK
  23. OK
  24. OK
  25. 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[edit]

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}}[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Email[edit]

You have email. Could you respond via email please? Thanks :) - NuclearWarfare contact meMy 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[edit]

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%
  1. OK, and can't be more wrong. If it has wikilinks, it hardly ever can be an A1
  2. I think you meant A1 instead of G1 in your review here?
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

? Icon confused.gif[edit]

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[edit]

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)
There is also a downside to changing your name in that you can lose potential supporters as well as potential opponents, my RFA was quite soon after my rename and I'm pretty sure that both of my "good interaction" type supporters were as a result of stuff I did in the short period between my rename and my RFA. It would be interesting to see some stats on the success rate of recently renamed RFA candidates, my suspicion is that it may already be quite a strong negative factor; If so there isn't a need to do more than check the earliest talk page comments to see if they have changed their name, and have someone do the sort of scrutiny Balloonman suggests - though I'd have thought just prior to name change would be more relevant than around it. :) ϢereSpellCheckers 23:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I replied...[edit]

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[edit]

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.

Barnstar of Diligence.png 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 |► ϋrbanяenewaℓTALK ◄| 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[edit]

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.--2008Olympianchitchat 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)
Trust me, I know about pathetic behavior on AfDs. Grsz11 04:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI: I've closed the various AfDs that remained open given your endorsement(s) for early closure above. --ZimZalaBim talk 14:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I had actually given it three times previously, but oh well.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Bearucratship[edit]

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[edit]

Admin mop.PNG
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[edit]

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)
Yeah, it seemed weird for that to come up in an RfA - needless rehash of a resolved issue. I hope that side discussion comes to rest fairly quick, the RfA itself is shaping up as an interesting one on its own merits... Townlake (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: you might be interested[edit]

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)

I like him too... he's probably reading this page... so we'll see if he adds a talk link to his name---you hear that Amalthea... ;-)---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 04:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Huh, yes, I'm reading this ... I'm also blushing. :)
My signature always linked to my talk page. I recently removed the link to my user page though since there's really nothing of interest on it, so it consequently won't show any link at all on my talk page since MediaWiki suppresses self-links.
Cheers, Amalthea 14:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, after I went to check what started this thread I somehow managed to revert the message you left at Ynhockey's talk page without noticing right away. As you can imagine, I'm now blushing quite a bit more. :\ Sorry!
Amalthea 16:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Lol, that was pretty funny. Be careful about using automated tools though. Other than the effect on adminship (e.g. I opposed a candidate based on excessive Huggle use once), there's just nothing like manual editing :) By the way, again unrelated to adminship, I urge you to develop your user page! Not that it has to do with anything, but a good userpage is welcoming for users who want to know more about you. Anyway, you may disregard my comments and continue with your contributions :) -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course that particular blunder could just as well have happened with rollback.
When I changed the CSD notifications to leave automatic welcome notices a couple of weeks ago I started Huggle for the very first time to check how it used them. And while I understand and to an extent share your suspicion against too much automation, Huggle can be a very useful tool, and not just for reverting vandalism! In this particular case, it was very helpful to configure it to queue all speedy deletion notifications from recent changes so that I could easily check for any mistakes I made.
In the end, it all depends on the editor who uses the tool, and how well he understands it. "Guns don't kill people ...". :)
Cheers, Amalthea 04:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Belated appreciation[edit]

Once again thank you for going out of your way to nominate me for RfA. I wanted to state this openly for others to see, not via email. I haven't been myself in recent days but I'm trying to get back to normal now. While I'm pretty sure I won't run for RfA ever again, certainly not within the next 9 months, I would still love to receive future advise from you and consider you a friend and someone to look up to here at Wikipedia. All the best. — Realist2 05:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I do not regret nominating you... I suspect that there was more going on behind the scenes than I am aware of... this was perhaps the most unconventional RfA I've ever seen... ok... second most unconventional RfA I've ever seen... damn, why have I been involved in the TWO most bizarre RfA's ever... at least this time, I didn't screw the pooch myself :-) I do wish you the best... and hope everything is ok.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Seth's RfA[edit]

I saw your edit summary and agree... I would have no problem defending an early close, but decided that since he is an admin on two other projects, that we should at least get some input first. I was closing it at (0,0,0) which is OK in the case of a true noob, but for somebody with his experience, I wanted to let others chime in.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 23:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well that and the fact that people seemed intent on making comments in the closed RfA anyway, this is probably the path of least drama. --fvw* 23:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
ps: your talk page link is highly misleading, and I am very disapointed. I'd even say let down, but then the pun police would come and hunt me down. --fvw* 23:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
You should know how important trust is to adminship. How can a user like this be trusted? AGF means a lot, but you would have to be putting it to the very limit to give such power to such an individual. We have editing rules so we can tell what someone is about. This is like giving a child a handgun because they simply said that they have used one before and promise only to use it in the right way. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
You make it sound like the guy's a random nobody. You can see the work he's done by looking at his contributions on sister projects. We don't need to guess, we can see. Your analogy is simply inaccurate. He's been there, done that, got the T-shirt, and worn it. He has the ability to block websites across every Wikimedia project, plus many other thousands of sites that use the list, such as Wikia. He's never abused his tools. We have the evidence right in front of us. Majorly talk 22:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
to give such power to such ....... is like giving a child a handgun Are you for real Ottava Rima? This is a website. Yeah, it's in the top 8 or 7 most viewed in the world, but if your idea of the importance of adminship on Wikipedia and the whole website in general is that skewed you need a fast reality check. Pedro :  Chat  22:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I find it hilarious that you state that after posting on Malleus's talk page. If you need to know about admin abuse, you only have to ask him. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Comedy. Pedro :  Chat  23:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Malleus knows something about admin abuse????---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 23:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
(ecx2)Actually, I think of it more as a person went to medical school in German, got his degree/credentials. Now he moves to the US, he doesn't have to redo his degree/credentials, he just has to be recertified in another country. The fact is that he is trusted within the wikipedia community---otherwise he wouldn't be an admin on two of the stricter projects. We are not talking about somebody who is coming here from the Lithuanian Wiki project, but Germany and Meta. He has a niche, which needs help. Plus, I like the fact that he bring to the project cross polination!---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 22:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Balloonman, on that standard, I should be put through RfA. I have far more edits here, plus adminship on our other projects. Furthermore, I've seen worse things perpetrated by those like Poetlister to ever accept someone just because they came from another project. As they say, other projects are easier to get through without people knowing who you are. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I hope you don't take this the wrong way, and if I've gauged your temperment properly (eg you have a sense of humor), I don't think you will... but that is a very interesting/entertaining fact... you are an admin on another wikiproject! *I* don't have any problem with ya, but I know that a snowball would last longer in hell than an RfA for you ;-) Very interesting point---and actually, fairly convincing.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 23:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
You know my temperament because I have been around long enough for you to see it. Can you honestly say the same for this person? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree fully with Ottava, by the way. I don't see how an editor who, although an admin elsewhere, has less than 50 edits and can be given tools, while established English Wikipedia editors like Realist2, NuclearWarfare, and even myself have been here ten times longer, ten times more edits, and know the policies and guidelines of the English encyclopedia, but are not given the tools. ayematthew 01:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I can perfectly well understand opposing this guy, but your reason is literally "i failed my rfa therefore he should"? Tombomp (talk/contribs) 10:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree... getting the tools is not about how long you've been here, or how many edits you've made, or how well you know the policy. Its about trust, responsibility, and not making enemies. While I didn't participate in your RfA (that I recall) I suspect that one of those three criteria was your downfall. People with 10 times the edits and 5 times the experience as you can fail an RfA. Some people will never pass, regardless of how many FA's they write.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 14:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I wanted to come here, too. I noticed that you've changed your votes and participated strongly in the discussion. I think that's great. I feel that in this RfA we are truly discussing and deliberating over the decision. Many are posing thoughts and concerns; differing views of adminship; and the effects a promotion would have on the project as a whole. And, for the most part, the discussion appears to be extremely civil. All-in-all, I wanted to say, I think this is a productive RfA and that you're a strong part of that discussion. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks... I feel like I've been indecisive from the moment I closed it NOTNOW to the moment I reopened it for broader input... in light of how things are going, reopening it was definitely the right choice. I think if I closed it, some people might have said, "You shouldn't have closed it, but it's not worth fighting over" and accepted the notion that it would have failed.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 18:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't say indecisive. This RfA is great because we are participating in a discussion about the candidate and his wider role within not only en-wiki, but the project globally. I like the way the discussion has unfolded; it's good to see varied viewpoints and that we are all trying to reach a consensus in what amounts to a unique situation. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Per your essay and our past interactions on the topic...[edit]

Would you be able to look at Sandwichmas and the edit history and confirm to me I was right in removing the nonsense and vandalism db tags? I'm pretty sure I'm right, but it never hurts to confirm it. Ironholds (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

you were right!! I went back and reviewed it, and realized that what I thought was clear proof of vandalism, was in fact vandalism, but not on the versioin that was tagged for Prod.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, it was speedily deleted as G1... which is completely incorrect and shows a complete lack of understanding of what G1 is all about.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, again. It is a cycle, unfortunately; an admin deleting a page wrongly tagged reinforces the idea in the patrollers mind that this is the correct tag for that type of article. That user becomes an admin, convinced that this is the correct application of WP policies, deletes pages with the wrong rationale and inforces in the minds of new speedy deleters that this is correct, and so on. Ironholds (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, unfortunately, it was deleted by the admin whom I believe does the most harm to the project through his speedy deletions.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
To be fair if the revision he saw was the "9000 year old jedi master" one then it might be alright, but... I don't suppose talking to him about it would help? I'm rather loathe to confront him; no disrespect to you, but regardless of the "all users are equal" thing some more experienced users take "I think you did this wrong" quite personally. Then again, I guess most people would really. Ironholds (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
No the version he deleted was not the one with the 9000 year old jedi master in it... I had reverted back to the version you tagged. As for confronting him... I've approached him twice. I want to have a discussion, not a confrontation, so I'm using my essays a bridge to that discussion. I hope he reads them, then we can talk. The last thing I would do is start a conversation off accusatorily... which is why I've left admin names off of my surveys. I want to get this done right, CSD is too important of an area to make mistakes---better to err on the side of caution.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I could always talk to him if needed despite my misgivings; a fresh face, after all. I will (as a result of various situations relating to this sort of thing) consistently oppose people with bad CSD tagging for precisely this reason; a user who believes an unacceptable rationale is good for deletion turns into a user who believes an unacceptable rationale is good for deletion.. with the delete button, and that is not something that can ever help the encyclopedia. It is rather difficult to interpret how effective the essay has been; most of the people on the talk page have been 1) "the title is bad" 2) "you're right, people have been tagging things wrongly under the current criteria! We should expand the CSD criteria to correct this" or "I agree completely" (with some exceptions and variations on those themes) and none of those really give any indication as to how the CSD patrollers and associated admins have reacted. Ironholds (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
He's probably checked out my page, and seen this discussion. I hope, if he has, that he's seen the discussions above about the Surveys' that I've done and the feedback that I've gotten there. Again, I don't want to create a war with him, I'm hoping to get him to understand that we have policies/guidelines for a reason, and while we do have IAR/SNOW, those are exceptions to the rules, they don't override the rules.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. IAR doesn't cover, for example, WP:MADEUP. It is going to be deleted anyway through established WP processes (prod, AfD); breaking the rules and CSDing it is not breaking the rules to improve the encyclopedia; the same change would have been made if you hadn't broken the rules. Ironholds (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
No his contention is that if it is going to be deleted after seven days anyway, why not snow it now and delete it now. While it is true that most PROD's will be deleted in seven days, the save day window was established as a safety valve to ensure that valid articles aren't deleted. It gives the author a chance to salvage it. IAR/SNOW is the basis for making exceptions, not the basis for rewriting the established rules.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
It's five days, not 7. See WP:PROD. But I agree with Balloonman that IAR should almost never be used for deletions--someone could say that removal of almost anything would improve the encyclopedia (and pretty much the same for keep); I don't think I've ever seen a deletion case where some sort of more precise reason couldn't be found. Also, to use IAR for unimportant procedural matters detracts from its serious use, for the same reason the Supreme Court doesn't pass on requests for bail. DGG (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction and the support, your opinion on this matter means a lot to me.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 20:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)EDIT: The sad thing is that the guy who tagged it G1 now things he has been vindicated because another admin deleted at G1.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 20:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed "I still believe the article is a non-sense. I don't miss your point. I know that kind of article that will be CSD deleted. And you know what? The article was finally deleted with CSD reason. It's just a waste of time to PROD that kind of article". In respect to your essay; have you seen this? I was trawling the userspace and ran into it. Ironholds (talk) 03:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Excellent essay, thanks for brining my attention to it... it was written by one of the best known wikipedians out there... BadlyDrawnJeff. I didn't know him, but I knew his name. It is probably better in many regards than mine... albeit a little old.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 10:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Matthew's take[edit]

Matthew gives a very detailed answer regarding possible problems to the Pump proposal on "editprotected" at User_talk:MBisanz#.22editprotected.22. (I'm watchlisting over there.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Winter Solstice[edit]

Hi Balloonman, thanks for taking the trouble to give me that feedback. ϢereSpellCheckers 23:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Your CSD award thingy[edit]

I was just wondering...

Speedy deletion, applied correctly, should only be used in cases where there is no reasonable chance that a legitimate article could be formed about a particular subject. The very nature of speedy deletion dictates that administrators are allowed to delete pages with no discussion: i.e., admins may, without defying policy, delete pages under the CSD regardless the page has been tagged for deletion. Tagging a page for speedy deletion is identical in function to reporting a vandal to Administrator Intervention Against Vandalism, namely, it is a way for non-administrators to alert admins about a task that needs to be performed. If anyone who presently tags pages for deletion were an admin, why would they still tag the page?

Obviously, it is your award, so you can do as you please, but I think that you will disqualify many administrators who are acting according to policy by including that as a requirement in your criteria. J.delanoygabsadds 09:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

you're right, that's my personal bias... but I shouldn't penalize people for having a different take. I'll revise the criteria. I prefer that with the exception of an attack page/copy vio, that two eyes look at an article, not one, but that isn't policy.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 09:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC) BTW what do you think of the rest of the criteria and the concept? And how did you come accross it?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 09:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I like the concept, and I think that your other criteria pretty much cover everything clearly and concisely. I came across the page because I watch almost all of the checkusers' talk pages, so I saw your post on Rlevse's page. J.delanoygabsadds 21:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Basically as I mention to Disco below, my motivation is to try to influence positive behavior in this area via positive reinforcement... there are some really bad CSD'ers out there, but I'm not sure of what to do about. Some are pretty well respected but still make major mistakes. In the mean time, I figure giving recognition to positive contributors in this area that is despised by many, I hope will encourage positive work on others. It is also, a way to get my essays and the fieldguide on correct speedy deletions out to the public in a friendly/non-confrontational manner!---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 00:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Review of your GA7s[edit]

Basiclly, you are correct that its less contentious.

  • Comments from DGG:

comments:

  1. Agree. Classic correct A7.
  2. Ditto
  3. Ditto
  4. Agree, as the article is written. Interestingly, without the sentence bout what they consider their most notable accomplishments, it would be more difficult to interpret.
  5. Agree, but only if it is confirmed there is nothing useful to be quickly found on Google
  6. either A7 or nonsense; though it can be deciphered, it is overall nonsense, Since it amounts to playing games with WP, one could call it nonsense.
  7. agree.
  8. not sure. A professional skater might be a claim to fame, but after only 2 years? I would perhaps have Prodded.
  9. agree, but I consider this classic A7 material as no common sense plausible claim & not worth extended treatment. I might equally call it a test page/
  10. Agree. This was an absolutely incorrect A7. Prod or Afd. It will be deleted, but it mioght happen there are sufficient news references for either the church or candidacy.
  11. Agree. I delete these as copyvio, while saying in the box "would be G11 promotional even if not copyvio." to discourage them from saying they have permission. Copyvio has the advantage over G11 that its an absolutely sure reason.
  12. Not sure I agree. There might be sources, and they might be hard to find.
  13. Not sure I agree. I'd agree only if a check shows nothing notable. I'd look at IMdB myself. People who start articles like this often forget to say, and the article just might be rescuable.
  14. Agree, but that's because nothing more done in the 2nd round. Otherwise I would at least leave a personalized note suggesting writing more. In practice, though, very very few HS students are actually notable.
  15. Disagree totally. Invalid A7. Saying that an airline has ordered 10 airplanes is an assertion of notability. This needs a more careful check for sources than is appropriate for speedy.
  16. Agree, but I do them as test pages usually
  17. Ditto. that the author didn't say where makes it clearly just a test. Nobody would even do this for a social networking page.
  18. Agree. Invalid A7, but I do not think it a subious one. If an article says this much there might be sources tht the work has been noticed.
  19. Agree
  20. Agree, but would call it test a less of a put-down DGG (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • My take. First of all, A7 is only asking for an indication of importance, while you require a "claim to notability" in your review. It's worded that way to stress that it's a lower standard than notability.
  1. I find this one less clear cut than you and DGG do. The "is currently working on many film projects" can be an indication of importance or significance. Per google and imdb I agree that it doesn't make a credible claim of importance, so it's an A7.
  2. OK per the article, but the topic might actually be notable enough for an article, per google. It's at the very least a plausible search term for John Currin.
  3. I know it's currently discussed again, but in practise A7 has always required a credible claim of importance (and it used to be written into the criterion, but was recently removed).
  4. Correct per the letter of A7, but with articles on actors it never hurts to take a look into the imdb profile.
  5. What DGG said: a passenger airline with Tu-204 and A318 size planes has an implicit claim of significance.

Cheers, Amalthea 03:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

  • BTW, following this edit I guess you should mark all the surveys with __NOINDEX__, or at least move the reproduced articles to non-indexed pages. The contents might have been released under the GFDL, but placing them in the context of a list of non-notable people/groups, accessible via search engine, can be hurtful to the topics. --Amalthea 04:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
    ETA: everything in /wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ is similarily excluded from indexing through the robots.txt. --Amalthea 16:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the recognition[edit]

I was very surprised and pleased to see this on my talk page today. I didn't think that anyone really paid attention to the articles that I speedily delete (except for the article creators, of course). It's good to know that someone is paying attention and is willing to take the time to make positive comments. Where can I find the rest of winners? I tried to follow the link you supplied (Past winners) but I got an error message. ... discospinster talk 21:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The link works for me... but so far you are the first. I hate careless speedy deleters (see the article I liked in the award), and decided that a better way to get others to listen is via positive reinforcement of those who are doing a good job, rather than confrontationally addressing the problems. Your name kept coming up when I was doing my "surveys" that I decided to take a closer look at you when I gave the award...---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 00:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the explanation. Well, I'm certainly glad to be the first recipient of this honour and I look forward to seeing who the others will be. ... discospinster talk 04:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I do too... I'm interested in seeing how my criteria might change as well as I become more exposed to the realities of CSD. I have my opinions, but I'm in a little ivory tower ;-)

Adminship[edit]

Okay, I've signed up for admincoaching, and I have a coach who is doing a pretty good job other than the fact that he's on and off here (and therefore difficult to communicate with), but I need an answer, and since you're probably one of the most experienced Wikipedians in RfA, I think you're the best to give me that answer. I'm I on the right track to adminship? Do you think I would make a good sysop? Do you think I should give RfA a go sooner or later? :) PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 21:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want to be an administrator? Do you think you should "give RfA a go sooner or later"? Why? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Adminship offers more tools to further help the project. I'm into vandal fighting, and I've noticed that there are times when reports at places like AIV, RPP, and UAA aren't actioned for quite a while (when reports aren't handled in a timely fashion, vandals can do a lot more damage). Also, CSD and unblock request templates could probably use a few more admins. I think I might be ready for RfA based on comments at my first RfA, but I'm looking for a second opinion. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 22:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I see. Well, Balloonman was probably a good choice to ask in that case. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Malleus for the vote of confidence... I'll try to take a closer look this evening.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 00:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't let's forget that I gave you that vote of confidence in spite of you having suggested in the past that I'm a prime candidate for ArbCom, which I undoubtedly am. Of course, I mean being dragged in front of ArbCom, not being elected to it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, that was a vote of confidence too... in a sort... ;-)---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 00:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Review[edit]

Hey. You indicated soon after the close of my RfA that you could possibly perform your massive editor review in a few days. I'd like to follow up on that if I may. If you are busy; that's OK, I could wait. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 04:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, this article might be another one for you to look at in your G1 analysis. A text dump from another admin seems to indicate to me that it was deleted under the wrong rationale. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 05:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Clear case of vandalism, but not G1.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Your CSD essay[edit]

You said: "On numerous occasions, I'll save an article in draft form, only to go back to writing the article. Before I have a chance to make another edit, my article will be tagged for deletion and then deleted." Don't you write drafts in your userspace? That usually offers plenty of protection against speedy deletion. Also, while you dislike CSD, I dislike Prod a lot. Often articles end up being deleted unilaterally by two editors just like CSD while they should have been discussed widely. PROD is supposed to be for non-controversial deletions, but in my experience, it's often misapplied. Perhaps you could do an essay on those too. - Mgm|(talk) 11:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The section about admin discretion says: "Just because an article has been deleted through AfD before, it does not mean G4 can always be applied. The admin can well decide that the previous consensus may have changed, for example when a 2006 AfD is invoked to delete a 2008 page." You've forgot to mention that this is often applied to articles that aren't sufficiently similar to the previously deleted version, even though the criteria say it should be. - Mgm|(talk) 11:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
1) The use of userspace to write articles is something that people (including myself) sometimes forget to do. New users, especially those who have edited anonymously as IPs, will not even think of it before delving into their first article. Experienced users, who don't start many new articles will forget about it.
2) Excellent point about PROD. It probably does get abused some---heck, I've seen articles on my watch list get prodded because I didn't notice the PROD.
3) The last section, about AFD, that was actually added by somebody else... I've been debating the contents of it myself.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 15:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Closing RfA's[edit]

Thanks for that; never done it before :). It was fairly obvious he was going to fail/be closed and the 'crat rules allow for a non-crat closure in such cases, so I thought what the heck. I'll keep your advice around for future situations (although I can't picture them happening very regularly). Ironholds (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you do an RFA-minded editor review?[edit]

I'm thinking of asking another editor - yes, I have an offer - to nominate me for adminship early next year. I anticipate spending more time on things where it would be better to use the tools than to ask for administrative assistance.

However, I want a second, or should I say, third set of eyes to review me before I go through the crucible. I've seen your work in RFA and coaching and was wondering if you'd be that additional set of eyes.

If I have issues that would lead you to think I might accidentally misuse the tools or use them inappropriately in any big way, the time to fix them is a few months before using the tools not as you learn them. If you are willing to give me an "editor review with emphasis on things that would be troublesome in an administrator" I would appreciate it. Some pages of User:Davidwr/RFAs may be helpful.

Note - I'm not looking for coaching, just a review to identify weak spots. Knowing these will help me decide when or if to throw my hat in the ring. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holiday season[edit]

Your CSD reviews[edit]

I wanted to ask if you'd mind if I used your CSD reviews to gauge views on some discussions currently going on at WT:CSD? It might get them a lot of traffic and attention, so just wanted to see if you'd mind before possibly getting a hundred eyeballs on them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, but actually, the thing I was thinking about doing was creating a REAL survey... eg going out and finding fresh CSD's and setting something up at Survey Monkey... get people's input without the initial commentary.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 04:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Indian states move[edit]

I've listed List of Indian state and union territory capitals on WP:RM. Since it's a featured list, I didn't want to move it unilaterally. It might possibly need further discussion. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool, since it is a FL, I'm going to let somebody else move it, but I'll put my two cents in there as well.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 14:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

Merry Christmas to you kind Sir! Don't float away in the New Year! ...groans... ScarianCall me Pat! 15:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Through the noise[edit]

Might've missed this comment at the VP, so I thought I would ask it directly.

If we have this pool of trustworthy users who specifically want to help edit pages for other editors who are unable to; ie perform edit protected requests, why then is the backlog for Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests and Category:Requested edits frequently weeks and months long?

Further, in my own experience, users collect these minor userrights flags as trophies, if these users are so barely interested in actually doing edits to semi-protected pages that they don't do them at all, how is this new userright not just a trophy for them to collect? MBisanz talk 22:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, to paraphrase: "If users collect these userrights as trophies, if these users are so barely interested in actually doing edits to pages they don't do them at all, how is adminship not just a trophy for them to collect?" Don't really see the difference myself, but I recognise that I'm in a minority of one, so I won't bother to argue the toss with you. Instead, I'll just wish you a Merry Xmas. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the only people that I'd be inclined to give that tool to would be people who work in speciality niches... and I would probably want it limited via a crat or an admin who works in those niches. Eg somebody who has shown a knack for the spam black list, templates, bots etc. I would not want to grant it to the typical editor who just wants it to edit protected articles.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 23:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
But the responses to my various objections at the VP were answered that they would not be able to edit MediaWiki pages (spamlist) or cascade protected templates ({{!}}). So basically they would be limited to protected articles and low-risk protected templates. MBisanz talk 23:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • TPS here. My opinion is that Edit protected requests remain in the queue for a short period of time because they are of two varieties: A: an uncontroversial edit made to a temporarily protected page (change an infobox on an article protected due to edit warring) or B: an agreed upon technical change made to a permentantly protected page. Those edit requests are made by (usually) knowledgeable editors with a functional understanding of what can and cannot be added. Often the text is physically just copied and pasted into the article/template from the talk page. Contrast this with edit semi-protected where the requester almost always has a limited understanding of policies and norms (not their fault, of course) and there is no easy categorization of the types of requests that are made. That, aside from the social aspect, could explain partially why the queues are so different. Also, there are substantially more semi-protected articles than protected articles. Even more compellingly (to me), administrators as a fraction of "power users" (users with more than 10k edits or more than 25 edits/week) are huge. We've got about 1000 active administrators and about 8-12 thousand "power users". For every pair of eyes watching edit protected there are far fewer people willing to populate it than the corresponding ratio between those watching semi-protected and those willing/able to populate it. Protonk (talk) 09:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Coaching[edit]

I wanted to see if I could harnass your experience. At Wikiversity, we have a learning project that was started to help admin, but it never really took off. It can be found here. I was wondering if you could help out, give advice, possibly set up some various scenarios that people should explore and discuss, etc. I would mostly want you to continue your activities that you do now in regards to admining, but would offer you a larger environment and the rest to work it through. I know people don't seem to take admining as a serious thing, but there is a lot of technical and ethical aspects that deserve attention in order to produce an effective candidate. Just a thought. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, I am flattered that you thought of me, I will definitely take a look, but I might not be able to get to it until after the holidays. If I forget, remind me after the holidays.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I keep forgetting that I am working on scholar time and not wiki time (scholarly publications tend to take years before things are finalized and published). I just assume that people will add it to their list and get around to it a month or so after. I have a long list of things that I go through just like that. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Have a good holiday. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Christmas Wishes[edit]

I just wanted to wish everybody who comes to my pages a Merry Christmas.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays[edit]

Merry Christmas[edit]

--A NobodyMy talk 02:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar[edit]

Opinion Barnstar Blue.jpg Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
For commenting on something that ought in fact to be commented on. Law Lord (talk) 10:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from Promethean[edit]

O'Hai there I'm Spartacus!, Merry Christmas!
Juletræet.jpg

I'm Spartacus!,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)

All the Best.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk)

Your reviewing methods[edit]

When reviewing a candidate for RfA, how do you look at them? In other words, what is your process of reviewing the candidate? I've been looking for a better way to review candidates, and could use some ideas! Happy Holidays! ayematthew 21:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this might help.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I really appreciate your kind message to reconcile with me. Although we were in disagreement on the RFA, I think you're a good person. Honestly, the situation mainly stemmed from my misunderstanding of the relocation of my comments to the talk page.l I was first shock at the move because I had thought only comments of some user like K...ber who now left the project would be treated like that. But well, I know I'm a black sheep on RFAs, but that's partially because I'm frustrated at lack of attention from administrators to my editing field (Asian subjects, especially China-Japan-Korea). Anyway, I also highly regard your searching for suitable admin candidates. As for the canvassing, it has no secret. Before and after doing it, I notified my intention to the talk page three times. Best wishes for the new year.--Caspian blue 08:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No point in letting good work go to waste...[edit]

Out of curiosity, did your research alluded to here lead you to any conclusions about the mistaken target? They have always struck me as a promising candidate. Skomorokh 15:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have opposed the mistaken target. While he does good work in one area, DYK, that was the only area where I saw any real involvement. And unfortunately, most of his edits were minor, and thus not demonstrating a broader understanding of WP policies and guidelines. While I am not opposed to niche admins, I do not consider DYK to be a true niche. When I think of niche candidates, I think of areas that nobody ever works nor is familiar with nor feels comfortable working in.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply; is the DYK focus not mitigated by the editor's GA contributions/reviews? Skomorokh 17:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I put DYK/GA/FAC/PR all under the same umbrella, they are all related to content reviews.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks in any case for your time; one to watch for the future perhaps. Regards, Skomorokh 18:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
the only real problem I saw with him was that he was too siloed. 90% of his edits seemed to be DYK related, 5% GA related, and 5% other. I know that is probably an exaggeration, but that is what it felt like.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 18:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Day One Basic mistake…[edit]

On your survey, you've left out the actual reasons for CSD-tagging articles: {{db|I've not heard of the topic}}, {{db|New account's first contribution}}, and {{db|I recently had an argument with the creator}}. Given the number of people who believe these are speedy criteria ("the subject of the article already has a website so doesn't need a Wikipedia page as well" is my current favorite), you and I are obviously committing the cardinal error of Being Against Consensus. – iridescent 02:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL... I should have looked for those classics! Didn't even think of it.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Diligence[edit]

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Balloonman, I present to you the barnstar of diligence in recognition of all your efforts to help assist and build Wikipedia, its community, and its processes. I may not always agree with you - hell, sometimes my opinion's the exact opposite of yours - but your constant dedication to improving the site in some way or another, whether it be at a noticeboard or RfA or elsewhere, is exemplary. You are a true asset to the project, and I honestly believe that if we had more like you, Wikipedia would be a better place. Master&Expert (Talk) 11:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks MnE... I appreciate the recognition.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 21:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Review[edit]

Truly a perk of having you as a coach :) I do have a few comments, one of which requires your action. Cheers. Nja247 (talkcontribs) 08:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Another review[edit]

I saw your essay. Was wondering if you could give me your opinion on Special:Undelete/Inna_Korobkina and Special:Undelete/Leslie_Stefanson. I'm not getting satisfaction from the deleting admin and am wondering if I should take this to deletion review or just undelete them. Gimmetrow 07:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I agree with either of those deletions as speedies---especially Leslie Stefanson. (Inna's is an ok speedy IMHO.) There is a modicum of a claim to notability---in being the daughter in The General's Daughter. That being said, as written, I don't think either of them meet WP:ENTERTAINER and would both be deleted at AfD. Which means, if you took it to DvR, the rally around the troops mentality will endorse the deletion. These two articles are, however, IMHO, the reason why I wrote the essay. I think A7 deletions are the cases where admins should give the most leaway in improving the article. They seem to be the ones where the most bite occurs and where there is the best chance to restore an article. If you think you can provide sources that shows that they meet notability requirements per wp:BIO or WP:Entertainer, I would say go ahead and recreate them (in your user space first) and then move them to the main space. But only if you can demonstrate notability.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 07:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I was surprised to find the redlink for Leslie given the exact role you mention. I'm not personally sure about Inna, since I've not seen any of the films listed for her, but my point there would be that two editors had removed the CSD, one even saying "not CSD material" in the edit summary. Personally, I'd prefer to have articles on such a minor actress more than articles on every TV character. I came across these while reviewing contribs from Gonçalo-Manuel (talk · contribs · logs · block log), who was blocked a few minutes after tagging these (and other) articles. Gimmetrow 07:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree. That is one of my big complaints about CSD... and something that I do seriously dislike. It is something that Admins should look out for, unfortunately, they do not. Adminshopping is a major problem, especially at CSD. I too would like to see more minor actors/actresses with articles. We are teaching would be admins that if they don't like the first answer, to keep trying because somebody will eventually delete it. The first one might not have established notability and might not meet the criteria, but she is obviously moderately successful to have been in several shows. The second one does make a claim, albeit weakly, to notability.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 08:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
That "make a claim" thing seems a little unclear to some. Here's another one. I caught this on CSD the first time. It seemed to me the original version included an obvious claim to notability. Gimmetrow 08:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Now, that one is flat out wrong. No argument, there is no way that article should have been deleted via speedy deletion. Virtually every sentence is an assertion of notability!---Balloonman PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 16:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Notice it's been CSD tagged, deleted, prodded, and deleted again. Four editors, including three admins, thought that text didn't include any assertion of notability. Gimmetrow 16:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Were I appointed Ruler Of Wikipedia, one of my first acts would be to abolish A7 & A9 as speedy reasons. Attack pages, vandalism and copyvios, yes – but what is the harm in keeping a Myspace band up for five days even if it's ultimately deleted? It's not like tag→delete takes any more effort than prod→wait→delete. – iridescent 18:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
With the caveat of "John is the greatest person to ever live" can still be deleted... I would make A7 clear vanity pages only.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 19:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for making a difference[edit]

Hi Balloonman, I just wanted to say thank you for your work in helping to improve CSD. I was surprised at first when I read your essay to notice one of my deletions pointed out as a mistake (deleting Mwuggle), so I made sure that I read the essay very closely. I've now learned some things I didn't know, and I am being much more careful now. I took the rest of the essay to heart too and am making a greater effort to explain to new users what mistakes they made that led their article to being deleted. You've already made a difference in my practices, and I suspect the essay has impacted a great many more CSDers. Thank you very much, and please, if you notice me making any other mistakes, let me know so that I can not do whatever I did again! Karanacs (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you... that means a lot to me. CSD is absolutely necessary... it is an area that if we don't have the project will be over run with problems... but it is an area that gets abused because nobody is watching it or attempting to establish consistent standards. That's kind of what I'm hoping to do---especially with the current surveys. Get people to see how others interpret the policies when looking at the same articles---and hopefully generate some discussion on some of them.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 16:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, Mwuggle was actually part of the inspiration behind the article. I had done a review of SIS, who nommed the article, and Ironholds had left her a note about Mwuggle and why it wasn't a CSD G1 candidate. I chimed in agreeing with Ironholds that it wasn't. So SIS and I got into a long discussion about CSD, its virtues and weaknesses... which lead to the essay. While we were talking, you deleted the article... and thus became the inspiration behind the section on adminshopping ;-)---Balloonman PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 17:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Used car[edit]

Hey there, check your e-mail -- I've got an update on a used car that you asked about earlier. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope "used car" is code for RfA! Support! ;-) ayematthew @ 17:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, please. You remember what Sigmund Freud said: Sometimes a used car is just a used car. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

I don't think I've disgraced my kind RFA nominator yet, I'm glad to say! And thanks again. You have said you are interested in suggestions of possible admin candidates. User:Blueboar seems a helpful, strong policy-focused possibility to me, so I thought I would suggest him as a possibility to fill the current vacuum at RFA. Happy New Year in any case. --Slp1 (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


Happy New Year![edit]

Best To Reply At My Talk Page. Thanks.

Just Stopping by. Yours Truly, M.H.True Romance iS Dead 15:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC) 718smiley.png.

Happy New Year![edit]

Dear Balloonman,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks Majorly... I hope 2009 is better for us.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 22:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)