User talk:Balloonman Information & User talk:Balloonman Links at HealthHaven.com

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

[edit] DYK for Ardi

On October 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ardi, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (see the pageview stats^(?)) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Mifter (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] SPI case

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Balloonman. Thank you. NW (Talk) 00:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

ROFLMFAO!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The checkuser was run, and it cleared you conclusively of being related to those other accounts. I apologize for suspecting you of sockpuppetry. I found it suspicious that several new WP:SPA accounts would be created to make exactly the same edit, introducing material violating WP:BLP. However, your relation to those accounts has been shown to be purely coincidental, and blameless in that regard.

Moreover, I think with the additional 3rd-party source you found, WP:RS is satisfied, and thereby the WP:BLP concern, at least for a presentation of a toned down version of the statement of criticism of Churchill by the national AIM leadership. Thanks for you cooperation in this editing matter. LotLE×talk 06:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I accept the apology... and apologize if I came off harsh in my response to the accusation.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WP:WIHSD

Hello, I know you are retired, but I also know you check here as well. I find your essay very useful for my CSDing and I often point other editors it's direction when they CSD with the wrong tags or when they mark things that don't meet criteria. Would you be willing to expand a little on CSD G2? I've been seeing articles that are marked G2 like Muhje_Malueng_Hai and Ek_Raaz that I don't think qualify. I would have marked them A7 or PRODed them. I think expanding your essay would help others understand the criteria better. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Retirement

Why did you retire? Now I can only nag Xeno. Thanks Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What happpened, Ballooman ? Just noticed this ( your retirement tag :( ) ! Hope things are ok. And yes, I hope you will rethink on your decision to leave wikipedia...Have a great day! -- Tinu Cherian - 06:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] per DGG and SoWhy

Just placing this here so you understand my reaction to those opposes.

I think DGG's argument is flawed on one ground: I have become so disgusted with AFD that I generally participate only in articles that I nominate, WP:CRYSTAL problems, and claims of hoax vandalism. There are exceptions, but not many: probably under 10% of my AFD participation (I could dredge through the log and give you a precise number if you want). I think it would be surprising if I voted to keep more than 1% of hoaxes and articles that I had nominated for deletion. Can I suggest that a more reasonable measure of dogmatism would be "If presented with new evidence and changing conditions, does Kww change his mind?"

Given that as a basis, I will point out

This sequence:

The whole (somewhat long) recent discussion over Latvian charts at WT:Record charts. For context, I had placed Latvia on the WP:BADCHARTS list, and Contains Mild Peril is trying to persuade me that I had done so prematurely. I

The recent discussion over Hit 40 UK, where I

I won't deny that I am a rules and evidence-based person. It comes from having an engineering background, legal training, and being raised in a military environment. I'm not persuaded that any of that is necessarily a bad thing.

As for the Charlie Harper AFD, the question comes down to what to do with unsuitable content: my position (and one with which others obviously differ) was that none of the current content of the article should be kept, and that none of it should be merged. The two likely targets (the show article and the actor's article) already had all the necessary information. In such a situation, I don't think that voting "delete" betrays any lack of understanding of policy.—Kww(talk) 16:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3

Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joachim Cronman (3rd nomination)

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joachim Cronman (3rd nomination). Thank you. Eastmain (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

[edit] Happy Halloween!

Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review for Collier Books

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Collier Books. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored it... you should add some references and ideally add a reason beyond the fact that it was swallowed by another company that went on to be swallowed by another company that become a notable company.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Curiosities

Hello! I'm curious as to why your userpage consists only of the RETIRED message. Do you just admire the template and continue editing here, or is it something else? Schfifty3 02:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

it's a reminder not to spend much time here... I consider myself more or less retired, but do keep an eye on things... I think most people who "retire" do so to a certain degree, but that most do so under a new name or an anonymous IP.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well you could always use Template:Semi-retired! Smithers (Talk) 03:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Offensive usernames

Hi. Sorry to pop up out of nowhere like this, especially given your (semi-)retirement, but I can see that you had some involvement with this issue before and I hoped that one brief conversation with you might save me many hours of trawling through diffs or perhaps looking for something which may not exist. In brief, I wondered what you could tell me, please, about policy concerning usernames like Yuckfoo.

(Still trying to be brief but yes I do have a horrible tendency to fail!) I'm personally not offended by it; I can see that it breaks current policy and would not now be allowed as it is technically offensive; I am confused as to whether there is some historical getout (does the term "grandfathered" apply??) especially given that this clearly is/was a legitimate, productive user. I am concerned that, if such a getout was applied, it should be documented somewhere, otherwise it seems to me we're just giving ammunition to the next person who wants an offensive name. If such documentation exists, I have failed to find it. Is there somewhere a "List Of Otherwise-Dodgy Usernames Deemed Acceptable For Historical Reasons" or something? Or is it just a question of let sleeping dogs lie, which would surprise me as there are so many instances where we do not let them do so! :)

I should perhaps add that despite the apparent youthful vigour of this account (slumps over, snoring, in corner) I've been around much longer than that so I remember, for example, the furore over TMC and his previous username. Sorry to bother you with this and please do not think that I am on some sort of extremist campaign or crusade here: I am genuinely curious, and a little confused, and I hoped that you might be able to clarify this for me a little. Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yuck Foo has been a problematic user name for years. It is one that I used to ask about when I did admin coaching. The challenge with Yuck is that his name is an obvious spoonerism that would not be allowed today if it were a new account. He is an established editor who has a solid history of positive contributions to the project and as such we don't want to loose his contributions to the project. His case is made more complex by the fact that he has long histories of absenteeism. He edits a lot then disappears for a few weeks. There have been at least two RfC's that I know about and several ANI discussions about him that I know about.

The general consensus is that while we would normally encourage or even force somebody with his name to change it, that we don't want to do so without getting his input first, and by the time somebody has noticed his name and wants to do something he has disappeared again for one of his breaks. Could we force a name change? Probably. But the consensus has been to leave it as a grandfathered in name. He has been around longer than the current naming policy.

There are other names that violate current policy, but have been grandfathered in so it's not unheard of. Although, I will be honest, the other names are not as potentially as offensive or flagrant disregards for current policy as YuckFoo. Still, Yuck has been a long term contributor, with a solid history, thus in every discussion I've seen, the sense has been not necessarily to condone it, but to let it be. If he were disruptive or other issues arose, there probably would be zero tolerance for his name, but as his long standing record attests, he's a solid contributor. Furthermore, the fact that there have been RfC's and ANI reports, the consensus seems to be to let this one slide.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the interesting and thoughtful reply. It's pretty much how I thought it must be, because it seems eminently challengeable but patently doesn't get (successfully) challenged. In a way, I feel it really would be better if this was publicly recorded somewhere as, perhaps, some kind of appendix to WP:U or something, so that what was "agreed" was out in the open. I feel that the current situation undermines our credibility a bit if we can't easily explain or defend it. I'm far from sure, though, that I have the energy to pursue this idea. Thanks again for taking the time to explain, best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FAR notification

I have nominated Military brat (U.S. subculture) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Your Admin Coach templates

Hi Balloonman! Long time no speak to! I appreciate that you have retired, and you might take a while to see this request... but I'm patient (grin)

I'm currently mentoring a user, and I thought it might be a worthwhile exercise in doing some of the tests you set for your coachees (brings back memories for me!) Would it be ok to make use of them? If so, could you please remind me how to post them on a page? Thanks! Stephen! ^Coming... 16:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You can find the excercises by looking at old versions of my user page, as for how to get them to post, use double brackets with the subst prefix. This will copy the material while allowing you to make edits as it will literally copy the page to where you have it. Here is an example:

{{subst:User:Balloonman/Admin Coaching AfD excercises}}---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! Stephen! ^Coming... 12:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Smosh

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Smosh. 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smosh (4th nomination). 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] NihonJoe

Hello, Balloonman. I understand, but especially in light of recent complaints at WT:RFA, I felt it important to close this request as soon as I could. -- Avi (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand which is why I didn't edit the RfB itself... but just put a note on there "for what it's worth." This is a very close call that will probably garner opposition (and support) however it ends up being decided.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Retired?

???

Regarding a recent "slim to none" comment I thought Slim left town years ago. :) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Scouting elections

You are receiving this notice as an active member of WikiProject Scouting. To change your status as a member, please edit Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Members.

Rlevse is retiring as our lead coordinator; see Stepping down as ScoutingWikiProject Lead Coordinator. Election for a new coordinator will be held after the new year. If you are interested in nominating yourself or another editor, please add the name to Project coordinator election.

Yours in Scouting
---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I saw your comment on Nihonjoe's talk page

where you said your support came too late. I read the 'crat discussion fairly carefully, and I beg to differ. I think your position helped sway a close call to the right decision. --SPhilbrick T 16:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I know it probably played a role in the final verdict, but I would have liked to have made the support "official". "Officially" my vote was to abstain. Unofficially, it may have become a major influencer... it probably received undue weight because it was late.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Note

"as having a history of positive interactions with just about everybody on WP with the exception of Ottava"

Only one time I could remember out of a long series of interactions that ever went sour. There could possibly be more, but I can't remember any nor do I have any problems with you. Quite the contrary, I was wondering what the hell happened to you! (Perhaps it was from me giving up on trying to ensure problematic editors and possible sock puppets didn't slip through RfA) And are you back to Balloonman from Spartacus something or other? That would be nice, as I always did enjoy this name more. :) How have you been? Where have you been? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we've had two interactions that went sour... the most notable being the one on MF's page about the Featured Topic that you wanted. Then there was another one where you made some negative comments/threats as well, but it didn't get nearly as out of hand as the one on MF's page... but there have been two times (besides the DMHO rfa) where *I* have found myself acting in a manner that *I* didn't like the way *I* behaved... and in both cases you were involved and had pressed the right buttons to get me to act in a manner that is outside my norm. I remember the other case more because when the MF page dispute came up, I remember thinking, "This is the second time Ottava's gotten to me like this and the second time that Ottava's acted this way towards me within a few weeks." I don't remember what prompted the first time, but I do remember you making some snide comments about my failed RfB---which you later pontificated upon on MF's page.

Personally, I hold no grudges and probably would not have said anything on the ArbCOM case if it wasn't for the fact that I think that the proposal would be a complete and utter disaster. I know that you and a few others like to talk about "double standards" for admins and unfortunately it exists. At the same time, there is also a double standard for some of our highly valued/effective editors, which is a category I put you in. Your content contributions are so valued here that most people turn a blind eye to other issues.

As for my name... I went back to BM in June/July, people continued to call me Balloonman, and the novelty of "I'm Spartacus!" wore off. I did keep the "No I'm Spartacus" as my talk page link.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't realize you felt that way and I am sorry for causing it. And I am sorry about the RfB - Number 17 was a statement that I truly meant. By the way, I don't remember talking about double standards when it comes to admin - it may be an association I picked up from hanging about Malleus's talk page. If anything, there is a double standard simply by who people know, but I've seen many admin get the boot just as quickly. Your RfB, for instance, shows a double standard where you (like Juliancolton) got the short end of the stick for reasons that are best not to really discuss. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that goes to how you can sometimes pick barbs... while I do believe you when you voiced your support at 17, you twice used the RfB as a means of attack.... once threatening that if I ever ran again that you'd ensure it failed. (Heck, you threatened to oepn an RfC to have me stripped as an Admin... but that went nowhere.) But I have seen you accuse others of being too dense to see what is perfectly obvious to you, eventhough nobody else sees it your way. Earnestly disagreeing with somebody does not make the other person unintelligent or insincere. From my observations of your debating style (and it's been a while since we've interacted so this might be dated) you prefer to go after those qualities when you butt heads. You often go about it in a more elegant manner than others might. Which to you might not feel like a personal attack, but to the person on the other end, it clearly feels like one. A person attack doesn't have to have profanity or name calling in it, in fact that usually just makes the speaker look dumb. A person attack is more personal when you attack their credibility/sincerity/objectiveness/etc---and those tend to be your targets. Might they be justified? I'm sure they are sometimes, but not always. Take the Featured Topic discussion. You saw the subject one way and everybody else saw it 180 degrees differently. When everybody else saw it differently from you, the discussion strayed away from the merits of the proposed topic, but rather became, "You guys clearly are not as educated as me otherwise, you would see what is obvious." It was a condescending tone that put others on the defensive, and it spiralled downhill from there. And I see that pattern in other areas where you get involved. Rather than addressing the issue in a neutral detached manner, you have a knack from making the discussions personal... thus, while you may not say, "John is stupid" you make it "Only an idiot would believe that." Does that make any sense?

The admin abuse association is definitely from hanging around Malleus' page, but yeah a double standard does exists; and it exists because people see the value in certain people who make certain contributions.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I blanked the previous stuff because it is long ended and I apologized back then and again today, so, there is no need to analyze it further. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I responded in detail, but it got edit conflicted, but I will just state, that I'm sorry for what happened then as well... things got a little carried away and there is no need to rehash it now. That's anceint history.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You never did explain where you went and why the change back to the old, better name. :) Plus, it says you are retired but your contribs are happily full and show activity, whats the deal? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Remember

Remember our interaction over two years ago when I was still editing as Southern Texas, and I called you an "anti-semitic troll." We can look back and laugh about it now, but lately I've found myself at the other end of similar sentiment. I guess things just happen that way. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I had wondered what had happened to ST... but yes, if you are doing your job properly, you will probably be accused by both sides of bias at one point or another.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thankspam

Hello, Balloonman! This is just a note thanking you for participating in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with a total of 93 support !votes, 1 oppose and 3 editors remaining neutral. While frankly overwhelmed by the level of support, I humbly thank the community for the trust it has placed in me, and vow to use the tools judiciously and without malice.

KV5 (Talk • Phils)

[edit] Yo ho ho

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

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

Glad to see that retirement hasn't stopped you editing here;) Ϣere SpielChequers 20:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Contents