User talk:Balloonman/archive 24

Deletion Review for Buck Humphrey
Hi Balloonman, I plan to take Buck Humphrey through deletion review based on his national exposure and press coverage. Eudemis (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"discuss the matter with the deleting administrator" I understood what you were stating in your summary. I have the impression that people were put off by the added media attention he receives as the grandson of Hubert. I believe his role in the democratic party locally and nationally and his coverage in a very large number of reliable secondary sources, whatever the reason, satisfies WP:Politician: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7] Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Eudemis (talk) 11:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, I don't take it personally and it is always possible (although unlikely) that I can make mistakes ;-) I will, however, stand by my decision to delete.  While he is oft mentioned in the articles provided, there was very little about the man himself.  It was always in relationship to others that he was being mentioned.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Buck Humphrey
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Buck Humphrey. 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. Eudemis (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Don Martin (public affairs)
Hi Baloonman. Can we rename the above article to Donald G. Martin rather than use the name of his business as the title of the article? This is how they disambiguate individuals in academia (by middle initial) and there is no reason we can't do the same here to avoid two conflicting titles. Another editor and the subject himself have both said they favor this as well. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
 * I have no problems with that.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you be the one to do it? It seems the more admin activity we have on this one the better. The subject is clearly upset about the way a Wikpedia article is vetted and I think we should show him we are doing things as a group and not as individuals. Thanks for your patience! Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
 * Done, I also created a dab, there were a lot of Don MArtins out there.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Baloonman!

..
 * Disclosure: This is Don Martin Dmartinaus (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC) I appreciate the name change as the way it was before did indeed raise questions.   The previous name Don Martin (public affairs) was created by another major editor, Orangemike, not me even though Nightmare thinks I nefariously named it that way in order to advertise my company. See edit below  In fact I vocally and strenously supported the new name change and challenged Nightmare to please change it.


 * 15:25, 4 June 2010 Orangemike (talk | contribs) m (14,349 bytes) (moved Don Martin (Austin, Texas) to Don Martin (public affairs): naming conventions)


 * Based on comments from Nightmare above and below, I feel compelled one more time to say that the reason for the difficult edits is not just me. I have been difficult, I admit, but I have made NO edits whatsoever.  Substantial, long-time editors like GregJackP and Minor4th are the primary ones who reverted Nightmares edits.  The reason is simple:  Nightmare has continued, as far as I can ascertain, to simply "make up" so-called facts to support his own purposes in killing the page (he has so stated that his purpose is to "kill the page")  presumably I am guessing because he disagreed with the Afd decision.  His edits are nearly all incorrect and needed correcting.  Here are a few examples:


 * Questioned (very rudely) if the "Austin" book was really a book, and whether I was really it's author. Called it a "just a book of pretty pictures" and questioned if I had gotten paid for the use of the postcards and not as an author (when he could have easily done a Google search of Arcadia Publishing to get the answers to all of those questions).  I even provided my book editor's name and phone number to him but he did not follow up.)
 * Accused the book of being "just a a vanity book" and that vanity books "often" appear on Amazon.  The book is in fact listed on ALL major on-line bookstores as well as from a very legitimate publisher (they are NOT a vanity press), Arcadia Publishing.
 * Said that my company (Don Martin Public Affairs) did not belong on an article about Don Martin, and that I was "purposefully gaming Wikipedia for advertising." Seems to me that it would be hard to write any article on an individul without mentioning the name of his company.   Especially so in my case.
 * Told me that there was "Wikipedia policy" against listing clients in the article (I provided numerous examples of other consultant articles with clients listed). Also said the list of clients was "exhaustive" when in fact it is far less than 10% of the clients listed on my web site.
 * Said I was essentially "advertising to sell land" re the real estate project I did and implied that it was not significant to the article (It is in fact the second largest mixed-use project in the Austin metro area at approximately 5 MILLION square feet, and is financed by Texas billionaire Ed Bass .  But more importantly, it was completed in 2008 and there is nothing to sell!
 * Questioned whether I was the "co-developer" of La Frontera and changed that language to diminish that title, when EVERY article on the subject in fact lists me as the co-developer with my long-time development partner Bill Smalling. See La Frontera (Round Rock, Texas)
 * Blatantly questioned the references to almost all of the article-based references and said the "they don't even mention Martin's name at all!"   The articles are from major daily newspapers and the like who use paid archives, so he could not have actually read the articles without a subscription.  So to assist all the editors I downloaded, at my expense, the full text of EVERY article referenced and posted them on a dedicated web site for anyone to examine.  100% of them deal significantly with Martin (i.e., "me"), and not as mere "mentions," either.   http://www.wikipedia-article-verification.com
 * Has repeatedly said the article subject is not notable. (see below)
 * Removed references by telling me that we only one reference per item is needed and that there are too many references anyway, so "not to worry." However User:Sarah told me we need MULTIPLE secondary, credible, published refernces to help establish notability. (PS- I have now posted many more freference articles to the web site as well).
 * Removed the reference entirely to a significant bio item about a newsletter I published Texas Government Newsletter
 * Lastly he showed an new interesting bias when he wrote on GregJackP's talk page that the article is "a 'PR pump' vanity piece used to promote a private business and one that helps corporations alter the public mood to allow for development." (Apparently he is against development?)
 * I could give many more examples, both large and small, where his edits are simply not factual. Since this is an article affects my business reputation, I am of course VERY concered about it being factual.  Hence his assertion that "the subject is clearly upset."    He's absolutely right on that count.     (Don Martin)   Dmartinaus (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is the website with the articles (Don Martin)  Dmartinaus (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Donald G. Martin
An article that you have been involved in editing, Donald G. Martin, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

Baloonman, this nom had nothing to do with not liking the decision to keep it. I have spent countless hours trying to clean this article up with language constantly reverted back. I'd appreciate if you would look into this a little deeper. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
 * You'll want to see this one too: Articles_for_deletion/Donald_G._Martin_(2nd_nomination) -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  01:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * if there is edit war going on, then there are ways to handle that. I'll take a look at it, but generally any afd nomination within a month of the previous nomination will be closed and could be seen as disruptive. I looked over the afd again, and this one wasn't close, I don't know if I would have !voted to keep, but this one was an easy keep. Again, if you are having problems afd is not the avenue to take.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect
Thank you for not taking the easy way out with a "no concensus" finding on the AfD debate. I read your reasoning for determining "keep", which was well thought out and presented, and I agree with your assessment (not that it matters). I think there has been a tendancy in the past toward vote tallying without giving thought to the points raised in the discussion. I should end this before I start to ramble, so I'll finish by saying: Good call. Movementarian (Talk) 08:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with those sentiments. Well done, and nice to see a competent administrator! --Epipelagic (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Add another thanks to the list. I'll still disagree with it, but your reasoning was throrough, well documented and still managed to be concise given the amount of comments!  Thanks.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 13:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That was a model close. Thanks for taking the time to look at it carefully and review the facts and arguments. (I apologize for a little too much repetition in my comments there.) Every time a closing admin does a good job at closing, I think it influences other admins to do a good job in future closings. You may never know exactly what future closes you've influenced, but I'm certain that will be the effect (we could call it "The Balloonman Effect"). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks... when I close something, unless I think it is uber-obvious, I try to explain my rationale. (I do that largely because if I am challenged down the road, I want to be able to see why I closed something the way I did.  If I am closing something that I know is going to be potentially contentious, which I know this one can be, I want people to know that it wasn't done spur the moment or without thought.  My hope is that by demonstrating that I did put thought into it, that it lets "the other side" know that I did consider their position/argument and WHY I came down where I did.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice job. I'm probably a bit biased, as a Keep vote, but you echoed many of my thoughts. I was jokingly considering telling every sysop they should weigh in at the AfD, if only so that they would have cover for not doing the close. I half wondered if there were straws chosen, with you getting the short one. Of course, the kudos from someone on the other side of the ledger as above, is the strongest evidence you nailed it, but I think JWB's point, "model close" is also on target.-- SPhilbrick  T  17:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

In your closing you did not mention the fact that numerous commentators at the AfD had brought up about the fact that about a third of the (and generally more reliable) sources in the article were discussing a use of the phrase in a different manner than the supposed effect that Gore's appearance has on lowering local temperatures. Did that enter your decision process at all? Active Banana (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes---The_Gore_Effect, and that would be a place wherein I would expect those who have a differing view on the term to step forward and ensure that those different usages are covered.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Balloonman, I meant to ask you about this the other day. Since your close of this AfD, we've been continuing to discuss what the sources show on how to treat the different meanings of the term, in the lead, and throughout the rest of the article.  More than a dozen sources are raised in the section here, for instance, several of them new.  Unfortunately at least one editor seems to think that your close, and your above comment, should dictate that additional meanings are only discussed lower in the article and not in the lead.  I have to think you'll agree this is not something that would have been decided by the AfD, and that any further changes to the article are purely a matter of the available sourcing and Wikipedia policy (I note that no one has proposed removing mention of the satirical meaning or anything close to it, though even for that I should think it would not be controlled by your close or later comments).  I could ask on some relevant board, but I was hoping you would clarify that your intent was not to restrict or dictate the future course of editing on this article.  Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 07:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Balloonman...First, my appreciation for both your willingness to "step up to the plate" and for your considered AfD determination. As I'm confident you've anticipated, now for the fallout...
 * I would urge you, prior to responding to Mackan79's query, to take a few moments to familiarize yourself with the discussion that has ensued in the article talk where your AfD determination is an oft-cited part of the post-AfD debate. Your response to Mackan79 here is likely to have considerable ramifications on the article composition. Perhaps this impact might be best illustrated by Macken79's recent edit of the introductory here and what that might portend for the article's future focus. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll simply note that if Jake believes your clarification here will have a significant impact on the article composition, then that in itself is a very strong reason for you to please clarify that you were not attempting to override consensus or the standard editorial process. I am surprised even that Jake thinks this is a winning argument, or that he can get you to come from closing the AfD to lend additional support for his position. Mackan79 (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, please note, Mackan's allegation that I (assumedly), purportedly advocate for "other uses" not being incorporated in the lede is, quite simply, balderdash. Thanks again. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, it is comments like this and this which I think are disrupting the discussion. I am trying to get editors to discuss how the sources should inform our treatment of the various meanings of the term.  Jake has not been willing to make a single comment about the sources, but simply keeps repeating that you made your decision, and so he doesn't have anything more to say.  This is why I'm requesting a simple clarification so that we can hopefully move on.  Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Modifications to Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect‎
Hi. I am bringing this to your attention as you were the closing admin. I would have reverted it myself, but it isn't nonsensical vandalism and I'm not too comfortable dealing with it because it feels like there might by a larger issue. Comments were added to the AfD after it was closed claiming that one of the users quoted in your summation was a sock puppet or something and it really feels like there is a grudge against another user in there. If you could look into and do as you see fit, I'd appreciate it. Cheers. Movementarian (Talk) 20:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the edit is fine. The user in question was NOT quoted by me in my closing statement and was blocked as a Sockpuppet of Scibaby.  Making notes like this on blocked socks is not uncommon and whether or not this particular person was a sock really doesn't impact the conclusions.  It probably would not have impacted the result if it had been one of the two people whom I explicitly cited, but if it had been it might have opened the door to re-evaluate the close.  As this is just one of 44 keep !votes, it has no real bearing.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I didn't go back and check myself before posting, you see I was a bit distracted as the South African goalkeeper had just received a red card, but I digress.  Thanks for pointing out my error and taking the time to look into it.  Cheers.  Movementarian (Talk) 00:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

World Series of Poker Casino Employee Championship
-(Spoiler Alert) ;) Just a head-ups a World Series of Poker Casino Employee Championship has won an open event winning his 2nd bracelet. -▪◦▪ ≡S i R E X≡  Talk 14:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Pathfinder Platoon
As the closing admin on the relevant AfD you redirected Pathfinder Platoon to 16 Air Assault Brigade in accordance with the majority view. This is now disputed by an editor who in the past has been sanctioned for his behaviour around the Pathfinder Platoon article and a small number of others. Can you take a look please?

TIA

ALR (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I made a comment on the talk page and if the reversions continue, I will protect the page. The verdict at AFD supporting the merge was pretty clear cut.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree: Let him know if he is that passionate about it, that his avenue for appeal is at WP:DRV, but circumventing an already ruled afd by reverting or recreating will only lead to blocks for edit warring and disruption. ▪◦▪ ≡S i R E X≡  Talk 15:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks
 * ALR (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Donald G. Martin
I put this on Ty's page, thought you might like to read it since you make a mistake and it is covered in the text.

" Ty, yeah, I messed that whole thing up. I thought Sarah (another editor) wanted it proposed again, and when "jessi0421" showed up reverting all the old sales language back to the sales language that had been removed, I went ahead and nommed it because I figured it would just be a constant battle to keep the article neutral and encyclopedic, which is exactly what is happening. I believe the subject of the article himself is using friends, family, whomever, to vote "keep" and any of a number of other shenanigans. It often happens when a "new" editor pops up out of nowhere, and restores or creates language favoring the subject, often with the obvious intent of gaining free advertising and linking via Wikipedia. The guy has his personal business and commercial real estate development company's sales sites listed as External Links one and two. I figured one of you supes would have figured it out by now, but I'm done shouting from the rooftops over it.

Let's look at the facts:

Me: seeing a Wikipedia discussion for an AfD and randomly joining in. I don't know the subject of any of the principal editors. Discover a nest of WP:COI and WP:NPOV violators obviously doing everything in their power to control the article down to the n'th degree and accusing anyone who questions anything of engaging in personal attacks and a lot of other nonsense that would be easy to refute point by point, but for some reason we don't do it that way. In any case, I spent a good two weeks trying to fight the good fight, let people know what was going on, etc., meanwhile a group of editors obviously working with the subject or for him accuse me of all kinds of miscreance and effectively get me banned for a day by making up lies about my behavior that goes uninvestigated.

The proponents of Donald G. Martin: Constantly reporting anyone who makes any attempt at removing biased language or sales literature from the article to supervisors for "disrutive edits." Claim that all the language in the article has been reached by concensus and that it can't be changed. I was even challenged to "take it to the discussion board" before I made a grammatical correction. Get that? No content change, just correcting some grammar. I mean, did we fall down the rabbit hole here or what?

Bottom line: the article should be deleted. I said it before and I'll say it again if necessary. It is a fluff piece on a non-notable person who developed some real estate and sits on some corporate or charity boards. Oh yeah, he's also an "author" as he published a collection of his own postcards. As for the article being kept, I think that was engineered by the subject but I went along with keeping it and tried to clean it up. Almost within a day, the sales data from the large commercial/business development that the subject has down in Texas was restored. I was accused of wanting to sink the article. I do. But I respected the decision to keep. My intent was not, as Balloonman mistakenly assumed, to try and delete it because I "didn't like the decision." On the contrary, it was proposed because it should have been deleted in the first place and through some shenanigans, the subject and others working with him managed to save it from AfD by canvassing for people to join in.

P.S. There have also been obvious socks, bogus accounts and masks used by this crew to make sure the Hero of American Industry, Donald G. Martin, is properly shown to be a proper combination of Abe Lincoln, Donald Trump and Ernest Hemingway.

But I'm leaving for a while. I tried. Have fun, kids"

Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Articles for deletion/Don Martin (public affairs)
Given the results of Sockpuppet investigations/Dmartinaus, perhaps you might wish to reconsider your close of the above AfD? Thanks. T. Canens (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I will DEFINITELY review it... probably won't get to see it until this evening. Right now, my kids are still up, so anything I is more or less thought free.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Balloonman. I came here to suggest the same thing since there's now evidence that about half the users involved in that discussion were socks of the article subject. There's no rush, though, so please take your time and enjoy your kids. :) Cheers, Sarah 03:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * deleted--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Cheers, Sarah 04:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The nice thing about all of this is that I don't have to shift through all of the edits and comments and allegations that were posted on my page like I thought I was going to!--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I've done a rough edit at User:Tyrenius/M removing sock puppet comments with a summary of !votes from editors in good standing, which is:


 * Keep GregJackP (talk)
 * Keep  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]
 * Keep Minor4th (talk)
 * Keep  DGG ( talk )
 * Deletion questioned. C.Fred (talk)


 * Keep (subject of article) Dmartinaus (talk)


 * Delete (as nom) Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk
 * Delete Nineteen Nightmares (talk)
 * Delete Daniel Case (talk)

The consensus is not for deletion (and the subject favours retaining the article). It would be unfair on legitimate editors if their voice was not heard, because of the loud noise from socks. Would you consider restoring the article and running a fresh AfD, which could be conducted properly?

 Ty  05:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but I went ahead and started a DRV To see if others concurred with my decision.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  I came to your page to request review as well.   I will comment on the DRV. Minor4th (talk) 06:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Another problematic article
Hi Balloonman, thanks for your work on the Donald Martin article (which I peer reviewed). I checked La Frontera (Round Rock, Texas) and it is almost entirely written by sock or meatpuppets of you know who - see here. Although it may be notable, the article reads more like a promotional brochure and is full of extraneous promotional details. I was considering AfDing it, but wanted to ask your opinion. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * looks like Sarah got to it before I did, but I was probably going to do the same thing. People who use socks and then pretend that they have to be convinced by one of the socks, don't get long leashes in my book.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for Review of AfD - Don Martin (public affairs)
I understand the concern on this, with all of the socks involved, but could you take another look at this? If you remove the votes of the socks, you are left with what appears to me to be a 'no consensus' decision. Three users were for deletion (Orangemike, Nineteen Nightmares, and Daniel Case). By the same token, there were three for keep (DDG, GregJackP, Minor4th) - with a fourth if you include the puppetmaster (Dmartnaus). At the least, I would request that it be re-listed. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See request above, I just opened a DRV on this case due to the unusual circumstances of the AfD.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Baloonman, please note that Minor4th and GregJackP have also been suspicisouly behind keeping this article intact and I have wondered why it is so important to them. Please go back and review the discussions on this stuff thoroughly. Also, as a punitive measure, Minor4th has nominated the first article I started here, Valley Entertainment Monthly for AfD. Odd timing, really. Why? And why are both of them so concerned the article be retained? What is the real value to Wikipedia? It does not make any sense. As I suspected socks before anyone else and was banned for a day for suggesting it, I think its safe for me to assume both of these editors are possibly meat puppets of some kind for Donald G. Martin of Don Martin Public Affairs in Austin, Texas. It would be nice to know why they are so entrenched in regards to retaining what amounts to a piece of junk mail. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
 * Thanks - missed that until I had already posted this. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that part of my wanting the article restored is directly and proportionally related to the time and effort I put into arguing with socks during the editing of the article. :D In any event, I appreciate your efforts on this - and if the DRV results in an 'endorse', I'll just go back to working on my latest GA effort.  Regards, GregJackP (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the sox really throw a wrinkle into this... when I first read the AFD, I was leaning towards delete, but decided to let it go as the subject (presumed) supported keeping it and the wave of sox that supported it. I found it to be questionable, but kept it due to the apparent consensus.  Well, I'm off to see what the DRV says ;-)  Like I said, however it turns out, I'm not going to lose any sleep over this, I just wanted to get a second viewing of my close.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Honourable Artillery Company
Hi there the Honourable Artillery Company is going through something of an edit war between two editors, can you semi protect the article or direct me to who can ? Thanks in advance --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * there have only been 3 edits made to the article today and prior to that it was a few weeks ago. Right now it would be premature to semi the article.  Plus, when there is only one or two editors involved, it is generally advisable to block specific users if it becomes necessary after the appropriate warnings have been issued.  Semi/full protection are generally reserved for when there are multiple editors inovled over an extended series of edits.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply --Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Don Martin article
Could I get a copy of the article/talkpages/history moved into my userspace at GregJackP/Donald G. Martin? I would like to try and work up additional references and see if I can get past the notability issue - this will take me awhile I imagine (2-3 months) due to other projects. Thank you for your consideration in this. GregJackP (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Done User:GregJackP/Donald G. Martin.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't know if I can get it to standards or not, but I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to work on it.  As to the DRV, I hope that there are no hard feelings - I obviously was not on the majority side of this, but appreciate you being open to discussing it.  It was definitely a learning experience for me.  Regards, GregJackP (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No hard feelings at all. I never felt like the article was worth keeping (his involvement in the lawsuit is pure BLP1E and his book does not meet AUTHOR) but I was swayed by the majority opinion.  While AFD is not an vote, you need to have solid reasons to go against the numbers---and in the original case, the numbers supported keeping it.  When the Socking came out, I felt that the numbers were no longer there and that it would be in the best interests of Don just to delete the article.  To me it will be a hard sell to keep him... BLP1E is going to be my big concern.  If he wasn't dropped from the lawsuit it would be easier to argue keeping... but go for it.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Similarly, if the verdict had been to overturn, I would not have had bad feelings. DRV is there for a reason and WP is only a hobby... it's not life.  Not worth getting worked up about.  If you get worked up here, its time to leave.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to say goodbye
I'm leaving - not one admin has the cajones to stand up to Sarah, so I have better things to do with my time. I really enjoyed working with you, even though we differed on the DRV - you're a class act. GregJackP   Boomer!  06:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment and sorry to see you go... there are people whom I find it is best just to ignore around here... I'm not familiar with what went on with the two of you, but I do find that it is easier to get under one another's skins on here.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI
You had previously participated in an Admin recall petition for Herostratus, at the user's talk page. This process has now started. It is ongoing as an RFA page, for admin recall, at: Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Admin recalls only have the weight of the honor of the person involved, Hero has asked that only non-admins chime in. Thus, if I expect him to adhere to the verdict, then the partiicpation shuold be as he has defined his Admin recall Criteria.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * hey wait, doesn't that invalidate his closing vote? (Sorry, bad joke)-- SPhilbrick  T  01:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Re User:AllieLGray
As I stated at the ANI thread I would like to apologise for the bad judgement call I made. I have no excuse, and all I can do is hold my hands up and apologise. I will strive not to make the same mistakes in future when analysing the scenario and facts, especially as I remember considering good faith editing at the time, but made such a monumentally incorrect assumption. It is always easier to look back in hindsight and say "I won't do that again", but I hope I can reassure you that I will keep this mistake in mind and be much more careful in the future when making assumptions. Again, I apologise for the negativity I contributed to the project with that error, and thank you for your contribution to the scenario/discussion to help resolve the issue I created. Regards, -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 21:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks for the apology, but it wasn't necessary... perhaps to her... but mistakes happen another admin fixed it. We all make mistakes on occassion and in the end, it really isn't a big deal (as she undoubtably knew her actions were pushing the envelope.)--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your understanding, I have apologised to the user in question. :) Happy editing to you, -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 06:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Farce
Yes, you did (predict it would be called farce.) I know I read that; it wasn't active in my conscious memory when I wrote that, but maybe you have subliminal control over me? Hmmm, I guess I'd better check out what else you have written.-- SPhilbrick  T  01:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * -)--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for the star and kind words. Herostratus (talk) 02:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry
I didn't realise that withdrawing a comment here would result in you running around deleting my edits elsewhere. I'll restore it on that basis - although I can't do it exactly to match the edit history, sorry. - Begoon (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I deleted one thread, I was not running around, which was overly aggressive, that loses it's context when you deleted your post here. I had hoped that we could discuss this as adults, rather than making snide comments in another forum.  The deletion of your comment (and notice on your page that I had done so) was intended as a means towards mending the rift that you created with your confusing comments here.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've expanded on my talk page about what I think was wrong. I'm bemused about what other forum you think I used - don't understand that comment at all. This would be a good time to apologise for a comment like that unless you can explain it. Sorry this has got so antagonistic - not my intent. -  Begoon (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What other forum? Er, For instance, he would unreservedly apologise in the event he accidentally made an unfounded accusation, or could have been seen to do so. I find it hard to adhere to his perfect view on life, but I agree with it in principle.  You made a cryptic post on my page which made absolutely no sense, and then you made another post, which taken in context of your post on my page construes a personal attack.  When you deleted your post here, I thought, "OK cool, perhaps I can find out what he is talking about."  Let's start fresh, ergo my deleting your aggressive comment (and notifying you that I had done so).--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

A sincere note
I'm really very sorry

I ended up arguing with you because you were on the other end of a keyboard.

That will never do. And I hve no excuse for my behaviour. Whatever my reasons for feeling aggrieved with the world, that is no excuse for picking on a fellow editor

I hope you can forgive me. If I can ever help you (unlikely, I know) - please let me know.

Jim -  Begoon (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for you apology. Accepted and forgotten.  And my apologies as well, I just didn't know where the hostility came from... I literally had no clue as to what this was about until you removed your from my page.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

How have I been doing?
Hi Balloonman! It's now been a couple of years since you helped me get the mop (time really does fly!) and I would appreciate your thoughts on my actions of late. I know you have strong views on speedy deletion, and as I have been doing a lot of work in that area lately, I would love to know how you think I am doing. If you've got time, that is! I've done my best to adhere to the strict criteria by only deleting if it is a valid candidate for speedy, not because I don't think it will survive AFD.

If you haven't got time to check up on my work, I won't mind in the slightest; I appreciate that I am asking a lot!

Take care, Stephen! Coming... 16:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was offline for a while... I'll try to take a look at ya sometime this weekend.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC for hyperpartisan sources at WP:RS
Balloonman, I've started the RfC regarding MMfA, MRC, FAIR, Newsbusters etc. Please continue to participate on the Reliable Sources Talk page here. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Maj Cornell Payne.jpg
File:Maj Cornell Payne.jpg is no longer associated with any article. I just wanted to let you know. What article was it placed in? Can we put it back in? Kingturtle (talk) 05:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * allo? Kingturtle (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry King, I honestly don't remember. My guess would be Military Brat as that is the only article that I remember uploading images for around that time period---especially dealing with the military.  That being said, there are other images that are better than that one.  My guess is that the original caption indicated that the female is his daughter, but it is hard to be certain that it isn't a young looking gf/wife, especially as you can't really see her that well.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletions
Whilst creating the WSOP Bracelet templates, I came across a number of small articles that I decided to propose deletion for. Sirex was kind enough to notify me that they were created by you, and that I should let you know. In retrospect, proposing all of them like that without any warning or questioning was probably too hasty, and I apologise for that... but at the same time I still don't think that they should have their own article yet. I'm very much open to your far more experienced opinion. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks, I took those articles off of my watch list when I "retired" last year so I would not have noticed them. But IMHO they are notable enough for an article because each is a WSOP bracelet winner---which is clearly the highest level of competition in a major recognized activity.  IMO blp1e should not apply as people who seek these individuals out will be doing so because they are notable and will want to know if they ever achieved another milestone, thus an article that says "no these are one hit wonders and ha" is a meaningful article.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I understand your point. There was an argument last year regarding whether members of the November Nine deserve their own article. 2005, in his uncanny way of forcibly making the argument that I cannot find any fault with, mentioned that a person can be seen as notable if their actions can be recognised as accomplishments that extend beyond a single event, else the article on the person is closer to being an article on the event itself. I believe that every member of the November Nine is more notable than a one-hit-wonder Ladies Event winner! JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree with ya. BLP1E IMHO applies to people who are known for one event and unlikely to be notable again because the event for which they are known is unusual/random/etc.  For example, a person who is known because a bear attacked them or because they witnessed a violent crime.  Nobody is ever going to ask, "Did John Smith ever get attacked by another bear?" or "Did Jane Doe ever witness another violent crime?  But they may reasonably ask, "Did that WSOP champion ever win another event?"  And in asking, there is an actual presupposition that said person may have.  Each of the November Nine, IMHO will have more than enough coverage to warrant an article... there is probably enough out there to justify an article on each of them now.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

There might be a lot that's said about them, but everything that I've observed is that because it's just one event, then they shouldn't have an article. You know better than me, but... I really am not all that sure. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In the past AFD's on WSOP bracelet winners have generally resulted in Keeping the article. I only know of one article which was deleted, but that was because the article was deleted without anybody from WP:POKER even knowing the article was created let alone nom'd for deletion.  In this regard it has gerally viewed as being part of WP:ATHLETE.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough... although there are MANY people with bracelets without articles... and those bracelets are open events. I'll not put them up for deletion again unless somebody else comments but I really disagree on the notability of the articles. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop the insults and personal comments.
The constant refrain of labeling me a 'wikilawyer' and other insults is distracting, tedious and pointless. Please stop. Just make your case and skip the personal comments. Dlabtot (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've stopped calling you a wikilawyer, but keeping this open for the sake of keeping this open is wikilawyering. Sorry, but that is the truth. There is no reason for it. The oriignal RfC is a Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. The subject in question had less than a snowball's chance in hell. Your opening an RfC on the subject of changing guidelines is Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point---because nobody was calling for a change. Discussions are closed all the time on Wikipedia, sorry you haven't seen it, but that's a fact. Especially when A) the conclusion is forgone B) there is no indication that things will change and C) meaningful conversation has ended. There is zero reason to keep this RfC open.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

RFC
Well, I did it anyway. Let's talk about what we can and cannot do. The only reason you think the RFC is "disruptive" is because you dont want arguments contrary to yours aired in public. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, personally, I don't rely on Fox. I don't watch TV news and my homepage is MSNBC!  But this whole discussion is a pure waste of time.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I only use Fox when I want to find out what the conservative spin is on the subject. (I am a Republican, but I prefer to get my news from liberal leaning sources as I find most conservative personalities to be too extreme for my taste.  I'm a fiscal conservative, social liberal/moderate.)  I just think this whole RfC is an utter waste of time an energy and dangerous to WP.  Sorry, IMO, it is ill conceived and unadvised.  It had zero chance of effecting change and if it did it would have created a shitstorm both on and off wikipedia.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Almost admin coaching
You probably remember me from last year. I don't intend to become an admin any time soon, but after a few years of exploring only the mainspace side of Wikipedia, I'd like to acquaint myself with some of the "behind the scenes stuff." I already have a basic understanding of how most things work, so adoption is quite out of the question. Could you perhaps admin-coach me? &mdash; La Pianista  ♫ ♪ 01:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry La, I haven't done coaching in over a year and a half now, I don't put enough time or energy into Wikipedia anymore to do so. I was "semi-retired" for almost 9 months before removing the tag and have been less active since removing the tag than I was when I was semi-retired and see myself potentially heading towards semi-retirement again.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's alright. It seems everyone, including myself, is semi-retired now, and for reasons that are perfectly legitimate. No apologies needed; hope you're having a nice day! &mdash; La Pianista  ♫ ♪ 00:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

E-mail
I sent you an e-mail, please respond via e-mail.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * responded in kind.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

MInd a round of whack-a-mole?
Recently, I was involved in an SPI concerning User:RewlandUmmer, a sock of banned User:Barryispuzzled. RU was blocked, but today showed up badgering the participants in that SPI and generally quacking all over the place. This definitely won't be Barry's last sock, but if you wouldn't mind giving the old banhammer a heave-ho, It'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Throwaway85 (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I am at work and unable to spend the time to research this... while I have little doubt about what you are saying, I am unfamiliar with the case and would want to look into it a little more than I can until later this evening.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, I ended up taking it to AN/I. Thanks, though! Throwaway85 (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Young Heretics
Hi, Can I get the Young Heretics page userfied to me so I can update it with new references to get it returned as an article. Thanks duffbeerforme (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Userfied to User:Duffbeerforme/Young Heretics. Regards  So Why  13:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks SoWhy. I'll let you and Balloonman know when I return this article to mainspace incase you think my changes are not good enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks SW.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have returned this page to the mainspace. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI - Courtesy
I recently quoted you within an ongoing article talk discussion. Please consider this to be a courtesy advisory that I have quoted you and not as a petition for any further observations. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Troublemaker!
We really need comments like this, of course... (NOT!) ;-) But since you took the trouble to notice too speelin mistakes, I thought you might be interested in a third: see asinine. Frank  |  talk  07:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am here to serve ;-)--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But at least you were commenting on that rather than the question concerning Malleus' sex...--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh, whether he does or doesn't is his business ;-) Frank  |  talk  07:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You're too sensitive
We need more RfAs like this one; they show the inherent stupidity of the current process. I notice btw that Torchwoodwho has apparently taken his ball and gone home. RfA ought to come with a very strong health warning. Malleus Fatuorum 18:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't about to leave that one open after his outburst to HJ... dumb dumb dumb dumb... it was going to turn into a blood bath.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 21:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing the formatting on that vote. Not sure why, but I always manage to get formatting wrong the first time on RfA's whenever I do something other than do a straight vote... The Thing //  Talk  //  Contribs  22:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Must be perfect...!
I noticed your need to spell things correctly if you notice you typed 'em! I do that, too... and Sinebot can sod off with its "You forgot to sign your own comment!!" I rollback and make the signature myself ^^ JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Phonetic Yiddish
I think it's great when non-jews use Yiddish. The language has many just awesome onomatopoeic words, especially in the more bawdy realms. Some have just about entered the language with a lot of people not even aware they're using Yiddish, like schlepp, putz, chutzpah, schlock, kvetch, kibosh and so on. Anyway, I wanted to tell you that I got a great kick out of seeing "hutspa" (chutzpah) at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Relisting straw poll. The greatest spelling ever.--162.84.161.15 (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad that a putz like me could make your day... although I'm glad you clarified what I said and where... at frist I was like, "what is this IP talking about... Yiddish... is this some sort of weird vandalism?" But when you said what/where it made sense.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * PS if you think my creative spelling with Phoenetic Yiddish is creative, you should see my creative spelling with Phoenetic English... NEVER teach a person with a speach impedement to spell things phoenetically!--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Dale Robertson sign (Tea Party) section
I thought you handled that situation boldly and effectively. It was resolved in a satisfactory manner much more quickly then I thought it would be and that is a favorable reflection on both wiki and yourself. I know I somewhat forced the issue as an unhappy customer but as a wiki consumer I tire of the endless partisan gaming of the system. If one moderate (non-partisan) reader complains, how many others observed the same problem and didn't take the time to bitch about it? 10, 100? More? I was taught that fewer then 1 in 10 makes a fuss.

I'm sure you don't hear it often enough; thank you for taking decisive action and dealing fairly with a partisan issue on a page crawling with partisan operatives. Veriss (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I thought you made an excellent point, that the issue was a BLP violation. I removed the text/image on those grounds, that (as you pointed out) the sources used were not reliable sources... which meant that negative material did not belong.  Once the issue was resolved with reliable sources, I'm happy.  I would not have accepted the USA Today source on it's own---that source was too vague in what was being described, but the other sources fulfilled BLP.  Now if others want to bicker about whether or not the discussion is necessary/relevant, that is a different story---that I won't get involved with.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

BLP question
Is the redirect on this page a violation? . I ask because this is something I looked into last spring and apparently Rove did not have a direct involvement in this, but rather a Time mag writer later admitted that Rove really hadn't done anything, and I believe the prosecutor found no wrong doing on Rove's part. It seems then, that wrapping Rove's name around this is a violation.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it is not a violation of BLP, although if he was exhonorated and/or the sources withdrew their allegations (and I'm not familiar enough with the case to definitively say one way or another that he has been) then that needs to be made clear. The reason why it would not be a BLP violation is because it was widely covered and his name, rightly or wrongly, is associated with the event.
 * Let me try it another way. Let's suppose for hypothetical discussion, that the sources all came out and said the same thing, "Rove is innocent and did nothing wrong."  100% vindication with no shadow of a doubt.  Would the article be complete without discussing the allegations?  No.  Would Rove's biography be complete without discussing the allegations? No, they were a major reason for his resignation.  Rightly or wrongly, they impacted his life---both professionally and personally.  The allegations also impacted the story.
 * Now, this is a highly charged political issue. Even if he were 100% innocent, based upon the stories that surfaced back then, unless there were an actual court case (and even then) not everybody is going to believe that.  Prosecutors, while theoretically objective, are not always deemed as impartial.  (And they do not establish "not guilty", they can only say that there isn't enough evidence to convict---Look at the prosecutor's statements regarding Ben Rothlisberger's summer sexual assault charge.  Ben the charges were dropped, but to me it sounded as if the prosecutor believes Ben is guilty, he just doesn't think he has the evidence to convict.  There are thus people who believe Ben is guilty and got off because he's rich, white, and famous.)  Now look at Rove, he's also highly political.  Without a divine writ exhonorating him by the Lord God Almighty, there are going to be people who believe he is guilty regardless of what happens.  (There are people who believe we never walked on the moon.)
 * Thus, our role isn't to whitewash the event/allegations. If we whitewashed the article to remove things that we now "know" not to be true, somebody might A) want to readd it later and B) may look at the article and think, "That's not the whole story, WP is biased because it didn't mention X."  It is not to remove them from the article, but rather to faithfully present what happened, what people thought, AND then make sure to include any retractions and prosecutorial findings that contradict the earlier reports. --- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me. Yes, I agree, we can't whitewash the article.  My concern was that the article on the Plame affair is being identified in the redirect as the "Karl Rove scandal."  And with so many players involved, it seemed to be that the redirect was POV in the least and perhaps a BLP violation at worse.  I'm not sure what the truth is either, and I don't think all the machinations have even been fully exposed and probably won't ever be.  I just don't see why the redirect should label it as "the Karl Rove scandal."  From the information in the article and on various reliable sources, it seems the Plame affair was never identified as 'the Karl Rove scandal.'  What do you think?Malke 2010 (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right, I didn't realize that it was a redirect, eventhough you told me... doing a search for the term "Karl Rove Scandal" I can't find anything that uses that name from reliable sources. There are some comedy pieces and partisan pieces that used it, but nothing I'd call reliable.  That being said, I think this should probably be taken to Redirects for discussion.  The redirect has been around for 5 years and is getting moderate usage.  Over the past six months it's averaged over 30 hits per month and prior to that over 100 hits per month.  While I believe it is borderline a BLP violation, it isn't a clear cut one.  There can be a scandal where the party(ies) involved are innocent or "not guilty."  This is a case where wider input might be appropriate.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, redirects don't need to be NPOV (WP:RNEUTRAL), and google news does find a couple of sources using that phrase. Don't know much about standards and practices at RfD, so it might be best to ask the crowd there. :) Personally, without knowing much about the topic, I'd say that the redirect is OK since the issue has been called by that phrase in RS and the target article has a whole section on the person. Amalthea  21:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds good. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

TPM/BLP question
Hello Balloonman, could you please look at this talk page section regarding the edit in the Astroturfing section about the Koch brothers? I removed the edit it refers to the other day but today another editor has put it back without much improvement. It seems to be a synthesis of what the sources are really saying. Appreciate it if you've the time to look at it as it's a BLP concern for another editor and myself. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at this later, I'm pretty busy today so it might not be until tonight or tomorrow. It looks like there has been a lot of discussion and I'll have to dig into the facts/contentions a little more than just a casual read.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

User Page Advocacy
A user states that I am being reported to "ANI" (whoever ANI is) for editing a user page that I believe was clearly advocating. I request that you look into the situation, the recent edits to my user talk page will give you the needed links. I believe the photograph posted on the user's wiki provided user page was inflammatory and subject to advocacy since it failed to provide meaningful context. I will restrain from providing further background so that I do not appear building bias. Thanks for taking the time to look into it. Veriss (talk) 05:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * wp:ANI is the board where administrators are called alerted to various issues..--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you've noticed by now, but I did respond at the WQA.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I did. I apologize for my belated response but I took a self-imposed couple of days off after I read the opinions that I had misinterpreted user space policy.  I was beginning to let what I perceived to be partisan activity on Wikipedia get to me.


 * I want you to know, but especially whoever may be reading this, that I wasn't shopping for consensus when I contacted you, I respected how you handled previous disagreements I had witnessed and I wanted to make sure I wasn't being railroaded. I have read and I understand the opinions of the more senior editors who replied there and will abide by the decision.


 * Thank you for taking the time to look into it and also to give your considered opinion, even if it was not in support of my apparently mistaken position. Sincerely, Veriss Veriss (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't think you were shopping for opinions, I read it for exactly what you stated above, somebody seeking the input from a specific user that they respected. It's just a good practice that when getting into a dispute/discussion that you learned about through another venue to disclose that venue---especially if there is a person/group behind your being contacted.  As long as it is in the open (and limited) then there generally isn't a problem.  The problem would have come in if you had contacted a dozen people  with statements such as "Come support me" and they/you didn't reveal the fact that contact had been made.  See the guidelines at WP:CANVASS and it'll give you some guidance, but in this case, I would not call it Canvassing.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)