User talk:Balloonman

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Wikipedia has a new administrator!

Thanks! Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed with 54 supports, 2 opposes and 3 neutrals. Thanks for your support, I really appreciate it. I hope to exceed expectations, If you have any advice please feel free to let me know. Thanks again!. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤

Request comments

I hope you will please check out Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poker#Tokwiro_Enterprises and offer your view. Thanks. 2005 00:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dearest Balloonman,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your kind words of very strong support are very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to The_undertow and Phoenix-wiki for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.

Lara❤Love 20:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Credits: This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks which was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

my rfa

If you voted in my RFA...

...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations.

Thank you again and, best regards. VanTucky ^Talk

This RFA thanks was inspired by Lara❤Love's

Userpage

I was wondering if I could make a few tweaks to your userpage? ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 19:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems... of course, I could always revert back if I don't like it... ;-) Balloonman 21:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hope you like it.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 22:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Much nicer, thanks.Balloonman 23:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who: Tin Dog Podcast

Even though I listed this at AfD, and still believe in my reasoning, with only 4 comments giving a basic 2-2 count do you not feel maybe it should have been relisted? -- Nuttah68 (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and undeleted it... put it down as no-consensus.-- Balloonman (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What I meant is not close the debate but relist it to get enough response to see if there is a consensus. I've never seen an AfD closed in any direction with such little comment. Are you a new admin? -- Nuttah68 (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it obvious ;-) -- Balloonman (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe :). Even though I believe the page should be deleted, I think its age and the effort that has gone in means it needs a good debate first. -- Nuttah68 (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

AFDs

I'm curious as to why you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GDI technology of Command & Conquer and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nod technology of Command & Conquer with different results, even though the same arguments were presented at each. Pagrashtak 22:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I will probably go back and revisit the one that was kept... it was at the top of the list, thus the first one to be reviewed and had more !votes than the other three on the same topic. I felt that it should have been deleted, but when reading comments such as "Keep per comments on others" there wasn't much to go on.-- Balloonman (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know why that one in particular got more of the "keep" side commenting and less of the "delete" side, even though all four articles clearly fall in the same boat, one way or the other. Thanks for taking a second look. Pagrashtak 22:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to relist that one, with a reference to the three that were deleted. You caught me as I was reviewing the Soviet/Allied articles on the subject.-- Balloonman (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flesh Field

Hey, just a heads up. The nomination was bundled with another, a album by the band that had an article too. You never acted on the album. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flesh Field and Strain (album). Thanks a bunch! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

didn't get that far... was deleting during a break at work... but somebody else already took care of it.Balloonman (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thanks for your help on saving the Valeriy Kapaev article from deletion. I greatly appreciate it. Happy Thanksgiving! Chris (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

CSD A7

Re: [1]

Buildings are not speedy deletable under CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for setting me strait and putting me back in line. I apologized to the editor I attacked and asked for his forgiveness. The attacks always seem to happen after I've spent time writing articles. I think I need to take a break, I'll go away for a few days and I'll come back refreshed and civil.--STX 18:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Just a friendly reminder that Did You Know is due in half an hour. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC) NOW OVERDUE! Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK note

I asked for an admin to check my DYK work... I know that I have to update a few articles/authors yet... but dinner is here... so I'll resume when I'm done with dinnerBalloonman (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Le Wiggles

Thanks for nominating this silly article for deletion. And thanks for giving me credit for my work on The Wiggles. I'm doing my best to get it to A-status, or even to FA status, and I appreciate your assistance. It's not there yet, but it's getting there. If you wouldn't mind, though, it'd be great if you gave some additional assistance. What specifically would you add/delete to improve this article? Thanks for your helpfulness, generosity, and kindness. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 06:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Kiel McNaughton

Hi, Could you please undelete Kiel McNaughton into my user space so I can rework it? Wikipedia seems to have a problem when there is a wealth of information on someone but it is nearly all from "unreliable sources". There's no doubt that he is a celebrity getting major promotion in NZ at present - I've seen him do several guest appearances in the past month. Thanks in advance, dramatic (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Page added at User talk:Dramatic/kiel remember when you are ready to reintroduce the article you can do so at wp:drv---you can also appeal the deletion there if you'd like.Balloonman (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank You dramatic (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dominic Ona-Ariki

Hekko, Balloonman ... When you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiel McNaughton, you neglected to delete Dominic Ona-Ariki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which was included in the AfD after it was opened ... Happy Editing! —141.156.234.101 (talk · contribs) 10:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the AfD, I don't see Dominic as part of the nomination. It was included as part of a comment, wherein somebody was making a comment about the other weak articles the author had created. As I read it, none of them were specifically included as part of the nomination or the discussion.Balloonman (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CastAStone

Hi, thanks for your quick action on this misbegotten RfA. I note that you removed it from the RfA list, as is proper - but, as a courtesy to CastAStone, is there a way to non-admin or non-bureaucrat close the RfA itself? He seems sincere in his utter horror that this mischief has been worked upon him, and he did accept the nom initially... if, by some chance, he runs again, I'd like to make sure that he gets a clean slate. Thanks again, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 05:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I simply pulled his link from the page... and then contacted a Beuracrat to let the Beauracrat take care of the nom. I personally, don't think it should end up as a failed nom.Balloonman (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for your offer. I think that would be a great course of action. Since the RFA started, I've been starting to branch into another area of my interest, The Price is Right, which is forcing me to become familiar with the fair-use and living persons policies, as those come up more often than they do in the U.S. Roads project. I was planning on withdrawing the nom anyway if it dropped below 50% support, but I suppose I may as well close it out now, as what's eight percent? :P Thanks again for making the offer, and I hope that things will work out well next time around. —Scott5114↗ 06:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I've created the page at User:Scott5114/Admin coaching. Thank you once again.—Scott5114↗ 07:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Nburden's RFA

Thanks for the advice, and your consideration. I appreciate it, and hope to continue to have a positive impact on the encyclopedia. Nburden ^(T) 08:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The "I" word

I was having a civil conversation with User:Nick and then he erased our discussion calling me a troll. Isn't this a classic case of WP:ABF?--STX 23:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

DYK update is overdue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 18:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the mop

Dear Balloonman, Thank you for supporting in my recent RfA. Words nor pictures can express my heartfelt appreciation at the confidence the community has shown me. I am both heartened and humbled by this confidence. I will carry the lessons learned from the constructive criticism I have received with me as I edit Wikipedia, and heed those lessons. Special thanks to Pedro and Henrik as nominators. Special thanks to Rudget who wanted to. A very special thanks to Moonriddengirl for her eloquence. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks: Armybrat

Some of the things I am proud of :) ... Interestingly I saw a few newspaper articles in Indian newspaper about this bit, there are things like identifying formation signs no. other jargon about which I guess I will know more then my friends in training or commissioned. you are from Army background too ?

Air Force... Indian newspaper as in India Indian or Us Indian? If it is India new papers and it's talking about military brats, it would be a great addition to the article!Balloonman 23:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 00:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi, Balloonman! Thanks for your comment on my RfA! Just wanted to point out that I never said content disputes were vandalism. In fact, during the edits that were going on it Jón Þór Birgisson, I attempted to mediate the situation by adding references *and* by contacting the user to find out what specifically his objections were. Just wanted to clarify the situation a little re: your comment. Thanks again! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

There were many other editors involved, I did not accuse anyone specifically. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to both you and your wife

Hope every thing goes well, you can name the Baby after me, Sirex Jr, his lordship and protector of the Crown,the great one, his excellent supremacy to all which is good (ok, long title, I know..but that's the short version). oh if shes a Girl, Sirexia well due. ;-)▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 09:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mind the humor ;-)Balloonman (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Lighten up.

You are not the first person to try to baloon the guidelines with overly specific pages. It's an ongoing problem that many people are watching and combatting on constant basis. The plumber joke is an old standby, for which I can't take original credit. Consider the analogy of tragedy of the commons, where what is good for one person individually is collectively bad for the whole. If we approve every guideline page which has some merit, we'll be drowning in them in a month, and there will be inconsistency and redundancy etc. etc. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Go cry some where else. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Done---All I wanted was an apology saying, you didn't mean to be offensive.Balloonman (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

* Please do not place any more comments on my talk page. You opened a complaint about me and were not supported. I'll consider further comments at my talk page as trolling and these will be promptly deleted. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Common ground

I had a busy morning after spending a couple of days away from WP, working on a charity event. Now that I'm caught up, I thouhgt I'd take a minute to see who you are. I see from your user page that we share a few experiences in common, catholic, MBA and auditors (a long time ago). I'm sorry that we got off on the wrong foot. Let's talk more some time on smoother groud. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I accepted your apology on ANI... that is all that I wanted.Balloonman (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote on my RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of 41/0/1. Please accept a slice of panettone as an expression of my gratitude. Feel free to help yourself to some chocolate zabaglione as well. I am humbled by the trust placed in me to use the tools wisely. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, really bad haiku from a new admin

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Click there for my RfA spam haikus! → → →

Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will new mop act?
Ooops, .com blocked

New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well Main Page

New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault

A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out DRV

A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye

Qatar is blocked
Shucks those range blocks are tricky!
Will get it straight soon.

Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ... A. B.

This RfA thank you card is based on a card originally done by Phaedriel

Balloonman, thanks so much for your support on my RfA.

More importantly, good luck to you and your wife as you embark on life's greatest adventure.
--A. B. ^(talk) 22:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Great success!

Click that-a-way to open your card! → → →

A hotdog for supporters.

Dear Balloonman,

Thank you for your participation in my request for adminship, which ended successfully with a final tally of (52/10/1). I was impressed by the thoughtful comments on both sides, and the RFA process in general. The extra buttons do look pretty snazzy, but I'll be careful not to overuse them. If you have advice to share or need assistance with anything, feel free to drop me a message or email. Thank you and good day!

Cordially,
— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Credits - This RFA thanks was inspired by Carlosguitar's RFA thanks and LaraLove's RFA thanks, which were both inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks, which was in turn inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

Belated thanks

A belated thanks for that notification. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional criteria essay thing

You seem to be arguing against yourself with your suggestions, and I'm lost on what you're hoping to accomplish. If you want to drop them down to just essay strength and be specific to the project, then how or why would the rest of the community have any interaction with them? What purpose are they going to serve if very few editors ever see them? You argue against instruction creep, but how does Balkanizing notability accomplish this? Horrorshowj (talk) 09:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Responded hereBalloonman (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Saw the response, not sure I agree with it but such is life. Thanks for putting the no fork announcement on my Village Pump thread. I'd meant to direct people to the main thread, but saw that Gorgan was claiming I had no objections to the change in the other tab and thought train derailed. Horrorshowj (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Gorgan messed up. I wondered about it when he did it, but his zeal for making the change (which I believe is a good one) may end up dooming the idea instead. It puts people on the defensive rather than receptive to the idea. I think it would make life a lot easier and cleaner---but that is my opinion.Balloonman (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability reform barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your patient and well-reasoned efforts in helping to achieve a much-needed reform of WP:BIO. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks.Balloonman (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

LiveJournal Article

> Was this page written by LiveJournal staff??

There is at least one Wikipedia editor monitoring the article (possibly -- probably -- more, but I've only argued with the one) who makes it a point to censor out anything critical of LiveJournal management while making sure the official LJ viewpoints are emphasized. If you check the article history, you'll see example after example of information taken from journals of critics removed "because blogs aren't reliable sources" while information from LJ employees' journals is taken as gospel.

Regardless of this unfortunate situation, congratulations on your and your wife's new baby. -- Davidkevin (talk) 06:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

P. S.: I just saw a response you got about this on the article's discussion page; it wasn't from the editor to whom I was referring above, but the justification was identical. It confirms what I conjectured about more than one editor manipulating Wikipedia rules for the purpose of pro-LJ-management propaganda. -- Davidkevin (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm Sorry

You're right I made a sweeping characterization of the discussion that I probably shouldn't have. I've let him get under my skin over the last few discussions and I'm reacting a lot more defensively than normal. I apologize for mischaracterizing your response, it wasn't my intention that it be read in that manner.

I wasn't trying to blow you off or be flippant with my earlier response to your answers, although I guess that got lost in translation. What I meant by it was that I understood your argument now, and we have philosophical differences on the matter. However, the differences aren't worth getting worked up over. I was trying get across that it was a friendly disagreement, because the discussion as a whole has gotten pretty contentious.

That's why I responded to your application point, rather than your explanation. I understand that you viewed that as disrespectful, and apologize for the miscommunication. It was not my intent to show any disrespect to you. Horrorshowj (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I know that you and gorgon are at odds, but your post classified everybody who took a different post as you and placed us in one camp. And then painted us with the broad strokes from yours and Gorgons little tiff. I've found that people are open to compromise---and that's what I'm hoping to achieve. My main desire is to see a way to avoid the hurt feelings that occurs whenever a wikiproject tries to come up with notability guidelines for it's arena of expertise and then butts heads with the N/BIO crowd. I believe that the template on the different guidelines written by projects will explicitly define the relationship. Thus, any conflicts over the usage in XfD's are alleviated. Balloonman (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Rhiannah Kitching

B, in your edit summary of The Wiggles, you state that Kitching is a "very active part of The Wiggles." That may be true--I did a brief Google search myself, and she does show up on a couple of cast lists for a few of their videos. However, she isn't listed on TV.com, and although that's not a completely reliable source, I've been known to use it as a last resource, as per WP:RS. As an administrator, you know that if something can't be backed up by a reliable source, it's best not to include it. Therefore, I'm reverting your edit. If you can a reliable source that states that Kitching played Henry the Octopus, please re-add it. Thanks for all your hard work, especially on The Wiggles' pages. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ohio Wesleyan University

Hello Balloonman . From looking at the talk page of Ohio Wesleyan University, I have seen that you have extensively contributed to the article and its amelioration. Could you please comment on the current discussion here. Your opinions on the issue would be highly valuable. Thanks in advance. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I am unaware of your position because you have not provided it yet. I only proceeded to contact two individuals, you and another fellow, because you have consistently discussed related issues as evinced here, here, here, and here. Nevertheless, two is hardly a synonym of multiple as given here. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The two you contacted, however, are the two who are on record as being opposed to the movement to disassociate OWU with the UMC...Balloonman (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; I keep track of my reverts. However, I have unbolded your warning on the OWU page as it is tangential to the discussion. In addition, your comments clearly show you disagreed with my position. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Michael Graves (poker player)

An editor has nominated Michael Graves (poker player), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Graves (poker player) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Michael Graves (poker player)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Michael Graves (poker player), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Graves (poker player). Thank you. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparent partisanship

I was deeply disappointed to see the treatment of this ANI complaint on "Sock-puppet attacking me and Wikistalking". You seem to have ignored the good evidence of wiki-stalking in order to make (what I suspect to be unjustified) accusations of incivility against the complainant. It was particularily noticeable to me, because I know the complainant to be "scholarly" and careful and keen to reach consensus. Whereas the subject seems much less so - indeed disruptive eg here saying: "... whatever the issue of this mediation, we don't have to feel concerned or linked to any result." I trust your response was not really as partisan as it appears. PR^talk 12:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)