User talk:Balloonman/archive 18

Query
For someone who is semi-retired, you're pretty active...like my father and father-in-law...

Since you're still around, I'd appreciate it if you could review User:BQZip01/RfA4 and give me some feedback. — BQZip01 — talk 22:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * yeah... I know pretty sad... I should just remove that banner shouldn't I... I'm such a failure (at being retired.)--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Review
Hey you reviewed me here and although I'm thinking of a possible late Summer RfA I'd still like to know what I've got to work on and if I improved from my last review. Thanks.-- Giants27 T/  C  02:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

CSD review
Hi, I noticed on ImperatorExercitus' RfA that you offered to do a CSD review. I was wondering if you could extend me that courtesy. KuyaBriBri Talk 20:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Triple crown nom
Hello, can you please format your nomination at User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle/Nominations according to the instructions? See the other entries on the list for a model. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 10:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Triple DYK
And that makes me eligible for the 25 DYK medal!--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin Barrick
Your input to Articles for deletion/Benjamin barrick is solicited. Thanks! Frank |  talk  03:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet case
Is there a sockpuppet case for User:Yourname? I have looked but I can not find one. --Abce2 (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record I have increased Yourname's block to indef. Just as you felt the need to increase his block for attacking my talk page, I felt the need to increase his block for attacking your talk page. I have no confidence this user has any intention of productive editing here, in two weeks or two years. Chillum  03:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but the its a case of a spade being called a spade. Chillum blocked Yourname this evening.  I posted on Chillums page--and as far as I know, it's the first time we've ever communicated and the only point we have in common.  We are also the two targets of the IP.  Pretty obvious as to who is behind the vandalism.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I would not be surprised if User:Yourname has been here before and blocked before. He seemed very aware of how to game polices and AGF. This same person clearly has access to multiple IPs, likely through proxies. This person probably is a reoccurring character here. Chillum  13:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP also hit DGG, who is also involved with Yourname.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Prod
Is there a page that contains all articles that currently have Prod tags on? BigDunc Talk 21:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. CAT:PROD--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Great thanks I will have a scout at them see if anything of worth can be found. BigDunc  Talk 21:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Yourname
for our shit-obsessed buddy. Not watching here, suggest User_talk:Chillum for centralized discussion StarM 00:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability of a village
Hi Spartacus could you point me in the direction of notability guidelines for a village thanks. BigDunc Talk 18:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion here that failed to gain consensus. Villages often survive AfD and historically they have been deemed to be notable enough to exist on their own... but that does not mean that there is a policy/guideline on it, nor that the historical position is still accepted today.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So as it stands it is I exist therefore I am BigDunc  Talk 19:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Belated 25 DYK Medal
First, thanks. Well, I'm about to endeavor on a series of poker related articles... but I definitely plan on writing up an article for next years April Fools if you don't write it first... it'll be about the organization that created the DYK that I think should be a April Fools.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC) BTW since this is my 25th medal/award, do I get a 25th medal/award for getting a 25th medal/award? Oh wait, this isn't the award center...--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

eh
i don't want to throw any more "gas onto the fire", as  it were, but since I highly value your opinion, I wanted reply to your comments. the reason I didn't unblock after seeing the WT:RFA discussion was because I felt that my actions were still appropriate; I disagree with a topic ban but saw no reason not to leave indefinitely blocked for disruption and let it go to the unblock process. I still feel that the topic ban discussion should have been held somewhere other than WT:RFA - it's a bit of a slanted crowd, don't you agree? the issue of whether we should litigate acceptable RFA votes (which I feel we should not) and whether we should block an account for doing nothing but disrupting RFA (which I feel we should) became conflated. hope this helps to explain my actions somewhat. –xeno talk 19:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the forum was not the correct one, and actually think your argument for banning him is stronger than Tan's argument for topic banning. He has become a SPA account whose only purpose is to disrupt.  I don't fault you for not being familiar with a specific discussion.  But when you became aware of it, then you probably should have unblocked as a related discussion was ongoing.  That being said, if there was an admin recall, I would not support it.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * thank you for your comments. =) in hindsight, i see your point about taking bold action after a community discussion has just recently run its course. –xeno talk
 * Yeah, that is where the concern/criticism comes from. Not in the action that you took, but rather that when you became aware of the discussion you didn't go 'Oh, I didn't realize this was happening.  I still believe in my actions, but the community is currently discussing this on a related matter.'  As such it could appear as if you were putting your judgment/perspective ahead of the communities or were being pointy.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * in my defense, I didn't have much time to deliberate - but I'll take this advice on board. =) the block wasn't meant to be either of those things. –xeno talk 19:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's one of the risks when blocking kurt DougTech... I mean a case where there is an ongoing discussion. The responses may come in faster than you have time to think...  anytime there is an active discussion, the actions are going to be seen with a spotlight, and questionable behavior (especially among admins) will be seen through a magnifying glass.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * having just done a thorough, exhaustive review of this editors (almost entirely automated) contribution history, I have to say that this one is as far from kurt as possible. my biggest mistake may be that I've made a martyr out of him. –xeno talk 20:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, like I said, I think your approach would have been more compelling than Tan's. Tan pointed only to the RfAs, which show a clear pattern, but the community has consistently shown lieniency when dealing with people such as kurt/DT.  By combining that with the fact that he makes virtually no edits elsewhere, it does look worse.  Again, if you had self reverted when WT:RFA was brought up to you, then you could have made a strong case that your position was different and explained why you reached the conclusion that you did---without sounding like you were trying to justify an end-around to WT:RFA.  (Again I trust that wasn't your intention, but that was the perception.)--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Another excellent point. There's clearly a reason I come here for advice. Thanks again =) –xeno <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 00:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * With the exception of responding to vandals, where the admin is being targetted because of actions taken as an admin, I am a huge advocate of doing everything possible to appear as above board as possible. Mistakes happen, it's not making the mistakes that defines us, but rather how we respond.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Please change block settings
Hello, could you please change the block settings for User:72.249.76.65 to prevent the person from posting toilet pictures on the user's talk page? Thank you. Loves Macs  (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was about to do that, but J.delanoy beat me to it. Either way, it has been ✅. Useight (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Typo
Hey, real quick, there's a typo in the header of this page. You may want to change "I do no believe" to "I do not believe". Useight (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * sofixit :) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would, but I have no idea how to create/edit text up there. Useight (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I learned something this evening. Typo fixed. Useight (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just came on... couldn't figure out where you were talking about... and by the time I did, you had fixed it. Thanks.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 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) 22:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Annie Duke
Regarding Annie Duke and defending doctoral work: so "defending" is indeed the proper word. However, is it the best term for the article? I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of readers will have no idea what this means. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * simple enough, add link--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

CSD bot
I wonder if Twinkle could help out a bit with the problem you mention that not every change in tag or decline is a mistake. Maybe Twinkle could automate somewhat the process of choosing an option different than the one the tagger chose, with a checkbox to indicate whether the admin thinks the difference was a mistake or a judgment call? (Watchlisting) - Dank (push to talk) 21:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's addiction to drama-fests
I noticed you tried to close down the drama-fest about Scarian's recent behavior at ANI and were reverted by another user who seems to be biased in this matter. Well, it evolved into the drama-fest you and me knew it would but I wanted to say that I personally appreciated that you at least tried to stop it in its tracks. Hopefully more people will follow your example in the future. Regards  So Why  17:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew it would probably be reopened... and just think, we didn't really accomplish that much except stir the pot a little more---while it appears to have lead to a person stepping down from the admin spot, there was no need to have this at ANI. I have even  less respect for a lot of the stuff at ANI than I do  for the stuff at CSD.  The difference is that CSD I think can be fixed and most people want it to work---we may differ on the details, but I do believe that everybody wants CSD to work.  Everytime I step foot into ANI it seems like another drama fest.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You know what I find interesting, is that the grand majority of users here tend to speak out against drama and how pervasive it is, yet whenever anybody attempts to close the wound quickly (via archiving), another user comes along and reverts the action with the rationale that "this requires further discussion" - then it inevitably deteriorates.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 17:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It didn't require further discussion. Friday jumped the gun by issuing a bad block, got his hand slapped for it.  Jennavecia started an RfC, which she undoubtably would have done anyway.  Nothing productive came from the ani report except a bunch of drama.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that at least allows us to distinguish those who really want to avoid drama from those who just say so but really don't want to. Unfortunately, the latter is the larger group and includes far too many admins I'm afraid.
 * @IS!: Of course it didn't. It was nothing that needed admin intervention and Friday's actions were the best proof that no admin action was possible to fix the problem, just to escalate it. When I first read Scarian's post, I felt like a bad person to assume that this will happen and I am not sure that I am happy to have been right about it. Regards  So Why  18:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It did not require further discussion. Some users just love drama and encourage it as much as possible. The block issued was punitive, not preventative. What Scarian did was inadvisable, but he's certainly not the only one who came out of this in a bad light.  Enigma <sup style="color:#FFA500;">msg  18:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the later is not the larger group... just like at CSD, 80% of the admins and users there do a great job. 10% do an ok job. But less than 10% give the whole process a bad name.  That 10% either doesn't understand or care to understand the problem.  Similarly with the Drama, 80% really do care.  10% could go either way. 10% want to fuel the flames.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Pff. You think this is drama. This must be about the abortion you want me to have, you bitch. --Moni3 (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Shhhh, don't tell my wife... she'd kill me ;-)--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are probably right, I misphrased this. I meant the latter is the more vocal (is that the right word?) group. 80% might not want the drama, but the 10% that seem to do write more than 90% of the posts in those topics and the majority seems unable to stop them. There should be a 3RR kind of rule that does not allow any user to write more than thrice in a certain thread or about a certain topic (or on those topics which a crat placed under such a probation at least). Probably not very likely to be accepted but like 3RR it could be used to limit drama a bit...Regards  So Why  18:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Pardon the butting in, but... assuming he makes good on his claim to give up the bit, then, yes, something useful came of this. I don't mind a bit of being slapped in exchange for solving a recurring problem. Friday (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He implied a little while ago in #wikipedia-en-admins that he's not giving up the bit. - Dank (push to talk) 18:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * we all make mistakes... that's not a big deal. I think we could have avoided the drama and ended up with the same result. I also think the more appropriate avenue would have been RfC, not ANI. ANI is to bring an issue that needs resolved now and where admin attention is necessary. It wasn't necessary at that specific moment. The case was cold the offending party had been chastized and went on a wikibreak. Keeping it open at ANI wasn't necessary.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Chastising is helpful, really? Are we all forgetting that this guy already got desysopped for throwing a tantrum? I don't see where an RFC could help.  RFCs are for gathering more input.  Nobody's defending his comments here, so what good is further input?  Let's assume there's an RFC.  Let's assume there's general agreement that his behavior was very inappropriate.  Let's assume there's general agreement that we don't want admins who throw tantrums.  Let's even go out on a limb and assume there's general agreement that he shouldn't have the bit.  What comes of this?  Nothing- no change.  The one tool we have at our disposal is his tendency toward tantrums.  If he gives up the bit in a tantrum, it's one small improvement made.  I don't see where anyone presented any other ideas that had any chance of resulting in a useful improvement. Friday (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your last sentence just proved my point, I don't see where anyone presented any other ideas that had any chance of resulting in a useful improvement. An RfC at least is the first formal step to desyopping an individual.  Putting a block, which was against consensus and policy, did nothing except create a new thread about how the action was against consensus and policy.  Keeping the ANI thread opened accomplished absolutely nothing.  If there is an ongoing trend, an RfC is the best place to present the evidence, not ANI.  The issue at hand was a dead issue when it arrived... any action taken would have been punative not preventive.  Thus, the wrong venue.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do I consider this a positive outcome? No.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * RFC is only useful for desysopping if it convinces the admin to voluntarily give up the bit. Assuming he sticks with his latest decision, he's already been convinced.  Do I wish he'd continue with the useful work he does?  Sure I do- but that's all on him to decide. Given how short his "break" turned out to be, I think it's foolish to assume this "retirement" means much.   Friday (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * we'll see. The shame is that ANI is not the appropriate forum to dredge up the old skeletons.  ANI is for, reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators.  This case did not need the intervention of any administrators, when administrative actions was taken, it was firmly criticized by the community (again, I'm saying that as a matter of fact not as an inditement against you.)  At the point it was brought to ANI, there was no administrative action to take, period.  Even Malleus, the object of the attack, acknowledged that at that point any action would be a cool down block that he would oppose. ANI also states, Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you discuss the issue with them on their user talk page.  This did not occur, I was the only person to contact Scarian on his talk page before the issue was reported to ANI.  We might have obtained the same result, with less drama if we actually talked on his talk page first?  The entirety of the Wiki-community did not have to be involved.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:BN
I've replied there but I was a little astonished to see your comments to be honest, particularly as we seem to be in agreement on this? Pedro : Chat  20:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Responded at BN--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw your interim edit at WP:BN. I take it that since you didn't repost that my edits clarified your concern/question?--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Question
I recall coming across on a article that had a prod tag were an editor second the prod, can you tell me how this was done, I have tried a couple of templates but cant find what I am looking for thanks. BigDunc Talk 16:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Add Prod-2 to the article.  Syn  ergy 16:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're looking for . AGK 16:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks chaps and very quick. BigDunc  Talk 16:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you credit that, had a look at an article that is in the prod cat and the first one I look at had the template I was looking for typical :-) BigDunc  Talk 16:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wording
Regarding this, given the tempers that have flared over the side subject of the RfA, perhaps an alternative to "crusade" would be better? I doubt most people would think you meant anything untoward by that word choice, but I thought maybe you'd appreciate the opportunity to choose another word before anyone gets upset and suggests there's some double-meaning intended. Frank |  talk  12:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * While I tend to respect Ottava a lot of the time, he does sometimes go on his 'crusades' in which cases he loses focus. In this case, his vigor turned counter productive.  When people started supporting "per Ottava" it is a sign that his stance had become counter productive.  In his zeal to prevent EK from becoming an admin, Ottava's actions shifted the focus away from EK and onto himself.  His zeal made it appear like a personal vendetta rather than a rationale reason to oppose.  Unfortunately, when Ottava gets on one of his rolls, his position is lost in his vehemence to be seen as right and viewing all other positions as inherently wrong.  I honestly believe that if he could moderate his temperament a little better that he would get more people to listen to him instead of creating the drama that tends to follow him... and I say that as a person who considers Ottava a friend (although I don't necessarily always agree with him.)--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Balloonman could say I foam at the mouth if he wants. That does not mean that I strongly disagree with his assessment. I already provided evidence that it is not the "vendetta" that others may want to cast it in order to smear my concerns. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is not necessarily what I perceive, but rather how the community has come to view it.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Emailed. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I just thought that there was the possibility that the word "crusade" would have the potential to be perceived badly, given the religious subtext of the side argument in the RfA. I'm not getting involved in the specifics of the RfA itself; I have already opined there. Frank |  talk  15:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not as bad as two people sympathetically emailed saying that a certain someone was trying to crucify me. Now that made me cringe, and that was from supporters. lol Ottava Rima (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... does that mean that there is a one in three chance that they see you as some sort of Messianic Figure?--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, seeing as how over 10,000 people were crucified, I don't need to necessarily be Jesus or one of the other two. But as Constantine said, it is a reminder and something that should now be limited in discussion and reference. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine... use logic... see if I care ;-)--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait, wtf, how did I forget how Spartacus was killed. ; / Ottava Rima (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Or was he... his army was decimated... but according to the movie everybody claimed to be Spartacus!--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, he was definitely crucified in the movie, but probably not in real life. Too bad! :P I still say that the ending of Ben Hur was more emotional than Spartacus, even though they basically had the same plot when you think about it. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, great, thanks a lot. This section needs a spoiler warning. But I guess that explains Bman's new username. I need to see more movies. Useight (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You never saw Spartacus!??? One of the great epics of its era. At the end, the Romans demand to know who Spartacus is to kill him, and everybody stands up saying, "I'm Spartacus!" or "No, I'm Spartacus!"---the line is such that the article on WP even has a section dedicated to the line--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, here's that scene. I assume the first guy to announce his identity was the real Spartacus? I've seen few movies that old, the only one that comes to mind is Planet of the Apes. The original Spartacus happens to be older than my father. Useight (talk) 05:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Kirk Douglas (mike's dad) was Spartacus. He was one of the first two to stand up and the one most focused on.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)  (And I'd guess that your dad is probably about my age... it is also older than me... and I am probably old enough (but barely) to be your dad.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My dad was born two months after that film was released, and I'm his oldest child. So he'll be 49 later this year, and I'm, well, mid-twenties. I didn't think you were that old until that incident that happened to your bird. And sorry for the double-whammy, both calling you old and stirring up unpleasant memories in one sentence. Useight (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I might be old enough to be your dad... but he is older than me...--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That old? Gesh!! Kids these days! I don't want to be like Malleus, but come on. Maybe there should be a question about the movie at RfA in order to prove age. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, by the way, I'm not that old. However, I know enough to have known early that classic movies are like classic literature: well done, strong themes, and always needed to be known. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And that back before the day of 500 channel cabel, you sometime had no other choice but to watch a classic movie... or a lumberjack competetion.... if you wanted to watch the 3 (or 4) channels.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Dablinks
Sure! If you look at the FLC comments page directly (not on the actual WP:FLC page), you will see a "toolbox" at the top. It will identify the dablinks for you if you click on the first link in there. If you still need help, there are dabfinder scripts out there that you can upload into your /monobook.js page, or you can ask me and I can try to give further help. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 15:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks, I was looking at the toolbox to the left of the screen... where it says "what links here." And couldn't figure out what option in that toolbox to use.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I use the DABfinder tool, which can be added to your monobook.js or bookmarked and used anonymously. Shubinator (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Dabomb87 (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

CSD RfC
I know you are interested in CSD, so you may want to comment at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Simplify policy RfC. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the FYI, this is probably an issue that anybody interested in new users writing articles should be interested.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Project name
Whoops, apologies. I must have been asleep at the keyboard. Changed my vote accordingly, thanks for pointing out the error. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 22:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * NP, the fact that you thought I had misplaced my !vote and the wording in your !vote made me think you misread it.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Blunkett
Heh. I didn't see it as a speedy myself, but I'm a results player, and the result is good. PhGustaf (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that the writer had to write something to the effect that some people see this as offensive pushed it into the G10 arena as far as I am concerned. I find the use of a persons name who happens to be blind as a slang term for blind to be insensitive at best.  This would need a reputable source to be kept.  If the author can provide a source, that is one thing.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Email
Sent you one.  Majorly  talk  19:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeffrey Pollack
I've reviewed this the second times, please take a look.— Chris!  c t 04:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooops, I made the changes last night I just forgot to save the comments on the GA page, sorry.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment commendation
Hello! I just wanted to take a moment to express my appreciation for the tactful and graceful manner in which you explained your decision to shift support away in the Majorly RfA. I presume this was a difficult decision on your part, but as an outsider observing your explanation I was impressed by the way you carefully explained your decision and how you outlined the bigger picture beyond the discussion. My hat is tipped to you, sir. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I WANT to support and debated my !vote for a while before changing it, but decided in the end that the issues raised were strong enough that if it weren't for the fact that it was Majorly, I would be opposing. The problem is that Majorly brings so many positives elsewhere that it complicates the issue.  He knows a ton about WP and is a net positive elsewhere, but his attitude does get in the way.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you handled this thorny situation with diplomatic skill. I hope other RfA denizens borrow a page from you should they find themselves in a similar situation. Thank you, again. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Donald G. Fink
Hi Spartacus. Can I trouble you to review the speedy deletion of Donald G. Fink. I created this article as a result of this request by an IP who wanted to write the article. The page was deleted within 2 minutes User:PMDrive1061 who appears to have gone offline soon afterwards. Please advise.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  16:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:AFC would be a place for the IP to go to get started on the article (assuming they didn't want to create an account themself. They could then write the article including references so that it doesn't get speedily deleted.
 * As for your options now? First, I think the deletion was a bad deletion.  A3 is for articles with little or no content, for articles where you can't identify the subject of the article.  This one had that.  I know that he was the president of a prestigious (?) group and had an award from said group named after him.  Those are both claims to importance/significance.  So no only does it meet the minimum requirements for A3, but it passes A7 as well.  A3 explicitly does not include stubs, However, a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context, in which case it is not eligible for deletion under this criterion.  Thus, normally you could approach the deleting admin about it, but I went ahead and restored it.  Second, you can expand upon it and recreate it yourself without entering into a wheel war.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I had already left a note for the deleting admin but came to you as he is offline and may not answer quickly.  It got nominated for AfD almost immediately you restored it.  I could put in enough refs to make sure it survives but I would rather leave that to the IP who was clearly itching to get started (at least they were yesterday) and I do not want to "take over" their idea and damp his/her enthusiasm. Thanks again.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  16:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to add enough to give it some credence at AFD. I've !voted there for Speedy Keep, this guy is clearly notable.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No thanks, spa'am, just a question...
Hi, Spartacus. I'm not sending out a bunch of thankspam, but I did want to thank you for your comments at my Rfa. And to ask a question. Has there ever been a consideration given to adding a prominent link on the WP:CSD page to WP:NPP? Or possibly expanding the intro with a variation of this text copied from NPP: "'It is advisable to patrol new pages from the bottom of the first page of the log. This should give the creating editor enough time to improve a new page before a patroller attends to it, particularly if the patroller tags the page for speedy deletion. Tagging anything other than attack pages or complete nonsense a minute after creation is not constructive and only serves to annoy the page author." It seems to me that this advice is crucial to avoiding the most common Bitey mistake at Csd. Yet, I always missed the subtle line at Csd and only understood it over time -- through trial and error. I'm one of those people that went directly to New Pages (just to see what happens to my new articles) and then started tagging by reading the Csd instructions, but never read any new page patroller advice. Even now, when I search through WP:CSD or Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations or Criteria for speedy deletion/Overturned speedy deletions, I completely miss that bit of help. I'm possibly an idiot but probably not the only one. Perhaps a simple line at the top WP:New pages should advise editors to read NPP before starting to patrol. Thoughts? — Cactus Writer |   needles  08:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The difficulty here is that because of attack pages we also need some people who patrol from the top. When I was doing new page patrol I usually operated at the most recent end of the log, but luckily for my second RFA I was cautious about marking stuff for deletion. I think that part of the skill in the current system is not to think of it as a binary choice between tagging as patrolled or tagging for deletion, try installing Hotcat and categorising the ones you are unsure of.
 * But yes there are several flaws in the current system and lots of new page patrollers falling into the trap of overenthusiastic tagging. Some flaws are being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Simplify policy RfC. In my view we need to make the process less bitey for our new page creators, and especially those who are contributing in good faith. In particular we need a "sticky prod" - probably not notable enough tag for articles that fall between A7 and AFD, giving them 7 days for improvement before an admin can delete them.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  09:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. Thanks for that link -- I'll need to read through that. My suggestion was more about the bolded sentence on using caution on tagging articles right out of the chute -- when they aren't attacks, vandalism, or copyvios. As well as guiding the new editors toward NPP when they first arrive at New Pages so that they can see that sentence before they start tagging. — Cactus Writer |   needles  09:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Spartacus
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

I'm Spartacus!, Pastor Theo has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Thank you for your message from earlier. This is something that I believe would be best revisited in late June/early July. Let us reconnect at that time. Take care and be well. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)