User talk:Balloonman/archive 16

Break
As some of you may recall, this past summer I took a short break to start up a part time business. That job has just taken off, and I have a major deadline approaching on March 3. As a result, I will be taking a short break. (I'll still be dropping in, but I need to focus on that job first and foremost.)--- I'm Spartacus!  The artist formerly known as Balloonman 03:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * When I have time tomorrow, I will try to address my relatively minor concerns myself (at the Poker FLC). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Clussexx Three D Grinchy Glee
You added a reference to Tiger Woods into the Clussexx Three D Grinchy Glee article, but the currently cited source doesn't include that info. Could you add a new citation tag to it to fix that? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
I intended to do that when it was resolved but haven't been on the internet lately. John Reaves 09:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 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) 21:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Frank Wilde
Hi (Balloonman?),

just wanted to ask your opinion on the deletion of Frank Wilde by user:Dank55. The deletion log says ...has become an attack page.... The article has a lot of incoming links for Frank Wilde the 1930s British tennis player. But I cannot see if this article is, or has ever been, about that Frank Wilde - I have had nothing to do with the article, I came across it entirely by accident while writing the Henry Wilde (engineer) article. if it ever was an article about the tennis player, as seems likely, then reversion rather than deletion should, I would have thought, be the correct action. But before I get involved, I thought it best to ask another opinion.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  18:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The article was, since its creation on 11 May 2006, about a modern-day businessman, not a 1930s tennis player. You quoted the deletion log entry only in part; while I might have chosen different words, the sentiment would have been the same. It was thinly-veiled negativity and attack on a particular person, and had been tagged at least since June 2008. You could certainly engage Dan on the matter; he is very approachable and will surely explain his actions in further detail if you just ask, and he might well show up and explain further anyway (I'll either point him to this question or he'll see it in my contributions log, or both).


 * If you have the makings of an appropriate article on the tennis player - or, indeed, about the businessman - I encourage you to create such in your userspace and any admin can work on moving it to main space when it's ready. If you have any questions or wish to engage further, please don't hesitate to contact me directly; I will endeavor to keep watching here (I always do anyway), but I might miss it. Frank  |  talk  02:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Frank, and good catch, Spark; I should have been clear what was going on in the deletion summary. For more than 2 years, anon editors had been giving the article a negative spin.  The spin was not outrageous, for a while, so the article wasn't deleted, but it just kept ratcheting up in tone over time, until the final product was probably defamatory in every paragraph.  I wasn't optimistic about what would happen if I reverted.  For two speedy deletion categories, copyright and defamation, we're subject to the same laws everyone else in the U.S. is subject to, so for those two cats, it's shoot first and ask questions later (and I did ask questions, as I recall). - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC) P.S. Oh wait, I did explain myself; I salted the article for 1 week and left the talk page intact (only time I've left the talk page in place that I recall), and invited people to use the talk page to work towards a neutral tone for one week. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks, I figured there must be more to it than I could see which is why I asked here. Sadly, I have no information on the tennis player other than what is on the other end of the incoming links.  Could probably put together a stub on that basis though.  Better get off I'm Spartacus's talk page now and stop cluttering it up. Actually, I'm pretty sure he's not Spartacus, most probably he's Tony Curtis (sorry for outing you).  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  10:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009
It is now March 5th, 2009, you have exceeded the permitted duration of your wikibreak. Please return to Wikipedia immediately or face dreadful consequences. :~)  MBisanz  talk 00:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Real life
Real life has become much more exciting than WP... I'm not going away, but will be cutting back significantly.--- I'm Spartacus!  The artist formerly known as Balloonman 18:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

ping
–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  21:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

One of your questions
Hi Spartacus. I noticed one of your questions, and it addressed exactly a situation I saw today. where would be the place to read about this and learn the answer? Thanks. — Ched ~ (yes?) 23:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 7 How can you tell if an editor (whether an account or an anon IP) is a sockpuppet?
 * found and read WP:SOCK, as well as the SPI board. Is there more? — Ched ~  (yes?) 23:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate statement
''I also think it is a fallacy, as was proposed on Mbiz's recall page that special sensitivity should be given to articles dealing with African Americans to make the process appear fair. If the article deserves to be deleted, it deserves to be deleted, people's feelings are often hurt when articles are deleted''

You repeatedly mischaracterized what I was saying on the recall page, then in the closing comment. Despite the fact that I clearly made a distinction between what you mischaracterized and what I actually said. Could it be that you're trying to bait me? Why don't you edit out the mischaracterization and stick to commenting on the DRV page in a DRV closing. The word fallacy, by the way, deals with facts, not suggestions. I suggested more diplomacy on a recall page because it was a page focused on MBisanz' behavior and my comment was a criticism and a suggestion about future behavior. That comment didn't go on the DRV page because it had nothing to do with whether or not the AfD should be overturned, so you not only mischaracterized what I said, you used your authority in the closing statement to make it seem like I was making an argument about why the decision should be overturned. Please remove that part of your closing comment. -- Noroton (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Every group and every editor deserves the same special sensitivity when it comes to deleting their articles. I do not care what the article is on, every article deserves the same consideration.  Could Mbiz have handled it differently, perhaps.  But I do not support the notion that somebody needs to walk on eggshells because of the sensitivities that another person might feel.  If Mbiz doesn't normally give long detailed explanations, then he shouldn't feel compelled to do so just because of the subject matter.  When you start putting those parameters around a subject, you are perpetuating racism.  Yes, I chose that word very carefully.  If there is an expectation to handle a situation differently because of "hurt feelings" then you put up a barrier that says, "you can't be yourself when dealing with that subject, you have to put up a pretense/false front."  As long as we are focusing on "special sensitivities" racism continues.  It is only when you treat every subject and every person the same, regardless of race that racism is eradicated.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your position, but it's not addressing what I'm talking about here. Your statement in the DRV close was not appropriate for a closing statement and it was inaccurate because it implies it was a DRV argument I was making, and it says I wanted deletion decisions made in part based on whether African Americans would be hurt. This is at least the third time I've explained this directly to you. Using closing statements to exaggerate and mischaracterize what other editors have said is an abuse of admin tools. Please edit the closing statement, or I'll add my objection to it, and if you don't like that, we can go to dispute resolution about it, starting with WP:ANI. -- Noroton (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

RFA for User:Davidwr
I closed out Requests for adminship/Davidwr and moved it to User:I'm Spartacus!/RFA-Davidwr for posterity. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  03:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

African Americans in Davenport, Iowa
Why did you restore this page? Who asked you to, and where is the discussion.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 19:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If I may: the discussion was at Deletion_review/Log/2009 March 3, just as it says in the page log. Cheers, Amalthea  19:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So basically you're abusing your power, and going against an AfD consensus? Is that what I see?  C T J F 8 3 Talk 02:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no abuse of power, the deletion review decided that the article should be restored. The restoring admin at a DRV is no more abusing power than the deleting admin at an AfD.  It is a normal Wikipedia process specified in the deletion policy and is the required action from the closing admin.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  08:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the chuckle CTJF... if you wanted to participate in the discussion, you could have. You could have also looked at the article's talk page to see two links to the discussion, but instead you choose to fling allegations... nice.  But IMO Noroton gave a strong enough reason to restore the article and there was a general consensus to this at the DRV that he deserves the opportunity to work on the article.  As I said in my closing statement though, if he doesn't bring it up to snuff I could see the article going back through the AfD process down the road, but I think enough evidence was provided at the DRV to make restoring the proper choice.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't know anything about the DRV...it would have been nice if someone notified me, as I was the one who nominated it for deletion...oh well though.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 16:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Photos
How do you put Photos on a page? Sourlemonade (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Sourlemonade, have a look at How_to_edit_a_page, does that help?  Were Spiel  Chequers  23:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review
As the admin that deleted American College of Pediatricians, please see Deletion review/Log/2009 March 13. And this is not canvassing. It just seems someone disagrees and forgot to notify you when posting it for review. - &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 10:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, put my response there. I have no problem with articles that are speedily deleted as copyvios/advertising being recreated assuming that the concerns that lead to their deletion are addressed.  If the author wants to recreate it, then more power to him.  He just needs to avoid lifting large sections of the page directly from other sources.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Thanks. - &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 21:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

RfA
Short for "Request for Arrows". :) Thank you for your supportive words. This has been a hard but useful experience (useful experiences often are hard) and whether I ever accept a nomination again or not, I'm willing to address the cautions of the sincere Opposers (such as yourself) and try to do better. Lots of arrows coming at me, and I get the point. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Username
I liked you when you were popping balloons ;) 211.30.25.62 (talk) 06:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I did too, but I like this one as well.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: WT:RFA
Heh. I prefer to think of it as "not quite of age", rather than "underage". ;) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  14:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you are a case where, if you hadn't declared it yourself, I would have never guessed (based on what I've seen) that you were as young as you are... I would have guessed in your 30's. Now granted, I haven't really looked at your edits in detail, but that's been my impression from what I have seen.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, I keep forgetting you are younger then one thinks, too, although I have read so from time to time. But that's just the point, isn't it? With one candidate who failed very recently I knew that he had to be really young just by looking at the RfA page, even though it didn't really come up during the RfA. -- Amalthea 14:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (To both) Thanks, I appreciate hearing that. There's no doubt that, in general, minors are likely to be less mature than "adults", but it's comments like this that are rather discouraging. Although, for what it's worth, I'm not sure if it was wise of me to declare that I'm a minor. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  16:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!
On behalf of the Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

E-mail
Hey there :), I sent you an e-mail a while back and I was wondering if you have had the chance to read/respond to it yet :). If you wish for me to, I can re-send the email or simply copy the e-mail here to make it easier for you respond :). Anyways Thanks and All the Best,  Mifter (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I missed it... if you don't know what date it was, I probably won't be able to find it... I use an OLD account that is pretty much 95% spam (I opened the email account in 1996---and have been using it for a lot of websites! It now gets about 100 spam messages a day---and those are the ones that make it through the spam filter!  Needless to say, it isn't my primary email.)--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I had thought as much ;), I've put a copy of the e-mail here so that you can see it and respond to it :), and I'll remove it as soon as you've had a chance to read it :).  All the Best,  Mifter (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try to take a look later, but I'm not spending as much time on WP as I used to... I still spend more time than I should... but I have cut back. As for the declined speedy, that's a non-issue.  The question is, was the version you tagged speediable.  If it was, then tagging it for deletion worked.  You got somebody to save the article, thus it is a good thing, not a bad thing.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh the eternal struggle about how much time to spend on-wiki :P, anyways I understand completely about you trying to cut back your time on-wiki, and when you have some free time if you feel like it, I would still appreciate it if you could still give me a RfA review :). All the Best, Mifter (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

DB edit summary
It had never occured to me to include a more detailed edit summary for these, and you were the first to mention it. I'll make sure to be more detailed in the future. Thanks for the advice. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Did You Know problem
Please see April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know, as the usual template for this purpose doesn't work for April Fools' Day. Art LaPella (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved the article to Gotcha, but am not sure what you are referencing re the "the usual template... doesn't work..."--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant DYKproblem doesn't work for April Fools' Day, so I didn't use it. Art LaPella (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I was worried it was something that I needed to fix that wasn't addressed in your note at the DYK. Thanks for catching the more common spelling.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for input
Hi there BM...I mean IS!. As you wrote that wonderful rant about why you hate speedy deleters, I wonder if you might be willing to comment on my latest contribution to the field of rants at User:SoWhy/Ten Commandments for Speedy Deletion. Regards  So Why  08:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Magic secrets
Template:Magic secrets has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

PD review
See commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 01:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

EBDVI deletion
Hello, the Edith Bunker's DVI page was deleted, with reason given as "appearing on non-notable compilations is not a claim to notability". If the compilations in question contained indeed notable acts, how does that make the compilations non-notable? Thanks. Replambe (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the guidelines for notability If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. The other criteria listed under wp:MUSIC are merely a list of possible reasons a group MIGHT be notable. Being one of 58 tracks on a non-notable album does not make a group notable, having a notable group contribute to an otherwise non-notable album does not make every group on that album notable.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that association is often a factor that causes others to take note of an otherwise unknown. EBDVI are also noted on the Sun City Girls website for their cover of one of their songs. I'm unclear as to where the line begins and ends, as there is much on wikipedia that is notable that has not been covered in Rolling Stone or CNN (in point of fact, some of these very things do NOT appear in Wikipedia). I take it you are brushing aside the other two factors I mentioned on the talk page? Would it help if I listed the albums (including vinyl) the band put out? Thanks. Replambe (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Are any of the albums on Major labels? IF so, then that can establish their notability---a large library from independent labels would not.  You need more than myspace or compilation lists.  The albums listed, where they were on with other groups, look like they were independent labels, which Nauscopy was.  Yes, non-notable groups are sometimes packaged with notable groups in an effort to get people to learn about the non-notable group.  But that does not convey significance/importance---especially when one of those compilations brags that they have 58 tracts.  The first and best proof of significance is significant independent coverage from reliable and independent sources.  Establish their notability, and then recreate the article.  I'm going to recreate the article in your talk space, so that you can work on it.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, there are plenty of acts here in Wikipedia that have never had a major label release. I understand that listing the myspace first may have been a foolish move. The group, like many others on this site, have had several albums (vinyl and otherwise) on independent labels. Many of the legendary punk bands of the 70's and 80's for instance, were quite notable but never had major label releases. It would take a lot of deleting and a lot of outraged wikipedians to keep consistent with this. Replambe (talk) 02:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Major labels is a way to establish notability, it isn't the only way. Did the group have a "cult" following?  Did it have an impact in some way?  Did it do something notable?  There are a number of ways to establish notability, make a credible claim that this group is indeed worth an article, and it will probably be keepable.  Did it receive any major awards?  Recognition?  Like I said, I recreated the article in your talk space.  Flesh it out with some reliable sources, and it should be fine.  Just a piece of advice, when developing articles most experienced users will do so in their talk space.  That way they can create it without fear of it being deleted.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All right, thanks for the writing tips. In the future, when I want to make a new article, and do it in my talkspace, will it get feedback as to whether it qualifies, despite being in a talkspace? I've made some additions to it in the talkspace, hoping it's fleshed out enough to qualify. If not, let me know. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Replambe (talk • contribs) 03:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know the feeling of having articles deleted... and even though I've written my share of articles (including FA/FL's) I've had articles speedily deleted. Work on it in your user space, when it is ready move it.  That way you don't have to worry about defending it from people who want to tag it before it is ready.