User talk:I'm Spartacus!/archive 3

How about the story that lead to FBI investigations? Faked Photo, Here's a great story about a and here is the true story Faked photo.  How about the Princess Diana photos?

Akshai Sarin
please visit the page, looks like a gentleman named precious roy on a rampage haha! i notice you helped save the day..

Pinoyle

Holocaust denial
Thanks for your words of support. Jayjg (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, I didn't realize he was doing that. Jayjg (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

GA review
Thanks for the comment - response on my talk page. EyeSereneTALK 16:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion
Wondered if you'd mind taking a look at Operation Gibraltar for me - my first attempt at a GA review. Given some of the comments on GA talk (and actions of some reviewers) re applying fail criteria more harshly, do you think I should have failed this article outright? EyeSereneTALK 12:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll try to take a look at this today... I've come down with bronchitis or walking pneumonia or something... I'm going back to sleep right now.Balloonman 13:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The editor has since addressed some of the points, but I still think the prose is odd in places. What's the consensus on editing articles that one is reviewing? I'd be quite happy to do a bit of minor copyediting myself, but I'm not sure how this sits with acting as a reviewer as well. However, RL must come first - get well soon & all the best! EyeSereneTALK 13:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are making the corrections as part of a GA/GAR, then it is perfectly acceptable to make edits to the article. The only reason why that criteria is in place is to prevent people from promoting articles that they have been personally involved with.Balloonman 17:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Righto, I'll dive in then. Thanks for passing my request on to LaraLove - she has made a few good suggestions on things I had missed, and I'm more confident now that I'm working along the right lines. Your help recently has been much appreciated! EyeSereneTALK 13:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I didn't want your request to go un-attended for too long, and the way I was feeling, I didn't know how long it would be before I would feel up to responding.  Lara is an excellent reviewer, so I asked her to take a look at it.Balloonman 01:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Franciszek Gajowniczek
Thanks, I'm not sure I helped much, but I did try to add a little and sort out the categories. Jayjg (talk) 03:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Jennifer Ann Crecente
On the AfD page for the above-referenced article you wrote the following and I posted a response. I wanted to include it on your talk page to give you the opportunity to respond:
 * Merge The article doesn't add anything of value that the GROUP article doesn't already adress. Wikipedia isn't a memorial (The preceeding unsigned comment was left by user:Balloonman)
 * Comment The two articles are significantly different. The GROUP article does not contain
 * any information regarding the murder,
 * the background of the victim, or
 * information regarding the $5,000 annual grant created by the Texas Psychological Association named The Jennifer Ann Crecente Memorial Grant.


 * WP:NOT states "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." These articles meet this condition - each on their own merits. Drew30319 15:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Feel free to respond either here or on the AfD page, I have both in my watchlist. Thanks. Drew30319 20:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that J.A.C. is notable enough to warrant her own article... I believe the pertinent facts should be merged into the Group that was inspired by her. So, my opinion stands.Balloonman 01:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)
The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Intrevention
Can you help with clarifying and referencing this article? Thanks! --Ginkgo100talk 02:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

WSOP bracelet GA review
Hey, glad that you find my comments helpful. If it means anything, I'm more used to analysing potential featured articles so I'm likely to be over-critical than under-critical. But please let me know if you'd like me to have another look in the near-future. All the best, The Rambling Man 16:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Congrats
Balloonman, Congratulations on both of your two recent poker related articles that are now featured in the DYK section of the main page, Nice Job! ▪◦▪ ≡ЅiREX≡Talk 16:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks... There should be a third one in a day or two... World Series of Poker braceletBalloonman 19:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's hope so, it was a very good idea coming up with an article for WSOP bracelet, I didn't even so much as think of it as a possibility, yet here it is... another great article. cheers ▪◦▪ ≡ЅiREX≡Talk 19:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was shocked when it turned out as well as it did... never imagined that I could find that much on the braceletsBalloonman 02:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Akshai Sarin
If you get a chance, will you please revisit this page? Information contained in the article was confusing and misleading. You may want to change your !vote (or not). Either way, there's no need to reply to my note. Thanks, Precious Roy 17:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous Christian
Hi Balloonman. You are off to such a great start on the article Anonymous Christian that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 02:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I had already nominated it for a DYK ;-) Balloonman 02:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Cool---You made my dayBalloonman 02:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

2the Max
Thank you for your help! (Although the article is in very initial stage (marked with stub), I have taken an hour to do the research on the company and product. ) &mdash; HenryLi (Talk) 16:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem... I just happen to know that if you are waiting for the admin in question to undelete it, you're going to be waiting a long time... when it is undeleted, simply make sure that you establish notability with reliable verifiable sources... a tip that I've started doing is to use a sandbox to create the article. Then move it when it is done, that way you avoid the risk of people prematurely deleting new articles before they can stand on their own.Balloonman 16:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Pollack age
I was trying to pin down Pollack's age without much luck, this is some of the information I found in my investigation, if I find anything else I'll let you know, oh btw DYK Balloonman has a Sh#$ load of DYK awards ;-) ▪◦▪ЅiREXTalk 01:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2006-06-25-poker-pollack_x.htm age 41 in 2006

"Jeffrey Pollack (BSJ86) was named vice president of marketing and corporate communications for the National Basketball Association at the age of 34. The former president and publisher of The Sports Business Daily, Pollack is the first to serve in his newly-created position. in the 1980's"
 * http://www.medill.northwestern.edu/alumni/medillian/spring00/classnotes.html


 * http://brokopp.casinocitytimes.com/articles/35969.html 1986 grad


 * Yeah, I saw a couple of dates that didn't make sense with his age either... I went with the date that was stated for the most recent event---but I have questions about it. Perhaps we should remove the age?Balloonman 02:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right, until Harrah's Casino or a newspaper/magazine decides to write about a bio with that exact info, btw I added something to you user page if you don't like it just revert it▪◦▪ЅiREXTalk 03:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to your comment on my talk page
I'm not an admin, but I've found that the easiest way to report vandals to them is by posting here. Cheers! --Bonadea 16:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah, that's where I posted... but I figured that if you were an admin, that you were active and might be able to block the user quicker... he did get blocked relatively quickly! ;-) Balloonman 17:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Burt Boutin
During the 2007 Telecast of World Series of Poker, Norman Chad did refer to Burt Boutin as "Red Bull Burt"


 * Norman Chad throws names around all the time... I would not consider a one time name used by Chad as a nickname. Hopefully, my edit incorporates your desire without elevating Chad's name to a nickname. Balloonman 14:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 02:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Political positions of Michael Bloomberg
Your edits are considered vandalism and they have been reverted.-- Southern Texas  04:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Correction... nominating an article for deletion is not vandalism. If you disagree with the nomination, you are free to defend it at the AFD.  Please do not call something vandalism that is not.Balloonman 04:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nominating a good article with good references is not vandalism its trolling .-- Southern Texas  04:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are a waste of time, I could be doing constructive edits right now, but you won't allow that you have something wrong with you-- Southern Texas  04:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad to see WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL being practiced so expertly.Balloonman 05:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care what you think you anti-semitic troll. Pro-Iran and Anti-Bloomberg, I think I make my point-- Southern Texas  14:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * After your announced retirement lastnight, I told the people at wikiquette that further action wasn't necessary. But with these continued uncivil comments and attacks, I've changed my stand.  (Note to others who may read this, *I* did not take S.T. to wikiquette---somebody else did on my behalf!)Balloonman 15:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Troll!
All this time I thought a troll was a fearsome member of a mythical anthropomorph race from Norse mythology. Thought you'd like to know that the guy calling you a troll above has somethin of a history of such behavior, as he made similar claims about someone who reverted him on Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. Cheers, JCO312 14:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * ROFLMAO!!! This literally alerted my co-workers that I WASN'T doing work when I broke out in laughter. ;-) Balloonman 15:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

lol, I came here to thank you for remaining civil with the same troll - would also appreciate if you'd give the Allegations of Iranian state terrorism article a good once-over. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 06:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * as far as I am concerned that article could be deleted. Even with this name, I don't believe these articles are appropriate---but there is precedence (Allegations of state terrorism by the United States) for them.  My main concern is NPOV.Balloonman 13:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin coaching
I recommend you create a user subpage such as User:Balloonman/Admin coaching for centralized coaching discussion. It will be very active for a (hopefully) short amount of time and will keep your talk page uncluttered. --Ginkgo100talk 01:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: S.Tex.
Just for the record, and I mean no offense by this, but I'm not supporting you, I simply find such obvious lack of civility absolutely horrible, especially when it's repeated time and time again. --L ucid 01:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * When I thanked you for the support, I was referring to commenting on his lack of civility... I do realize that you were not making a comment regarding the moving of said page or anything else.Your support was in regards to abhorrent behavior.Balloonman 02:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

taking anymore students?
Hi Firsfron, My wife, a former student of yours and now admin, suggested that I contact you. She's been pushing me for months to become an admin because she's tired of taking care of issues I identify. So I've decided to take the plunge and explore the possibility of becoming an Admin. I currently have close to 5000 edits and 40-50 new articles. I tend to drift around between AFD/GAR/DYK and writing new articles. It is the DYK that has lead me to decide to become an Admin. I'm very active in the Poker Project and somewhat active in the Scouting/Military projects. I have one article that made it to FA, a few GA, and 15 or so DYK. As an FYI, I should mention that we are going to a wedding this weekend and won't have much access to WP.Balloonman 04:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Balloonman,
 * Thanks for your note! Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I was on vacation/business trip out of state, and I wasn't able to edit Wikipedia for a few days: not even to add a Wikibreak tag. Whew! But I'm back now.
 * Yes, I'd be glad to provide coaching for you. I see you've already created the coaching page, so if you're still interested, and haven't given up in boredom from waiting, shall we get started? Firsfron of Ronchester  06:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan ;-)Balloonman 14:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Why I called you a troll
I'll admit that I handled our dispute the wrong way. Earlier in the same day I had a dispute on the Speaker of the House page. It was settled down, but during the dispute I did not remain civil. I called a user a troll for getting involved in an edit war with me over the same thing I was already in an edit war with another user over. We were cooling down and trying to compromise on the talk page when the edit was made. I did not assume good faith and I was wrong. I was starting to cool down until an article that I worked hard in created was nominated for deletion by you. This put me over the edge and I called you are troll. I did not assume good faith but let me explain why I did this:
 * "Deliberate misuse of processes is a favourite troll game. Examples include continual nomination of articles for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion that are obviously encyclopedic" This is from WP:TROLL. You nominated an article that was encyclopedic and had good sources for deletion without first discussing a possible nomination on the talk page of the article or by filing with Proposed deletion. You later backpedaled stating that you thought it should be merged. If this was the case you would have nominated the article on Proposed mergers. I doubt that you even read the article before filing the nomination, you made an edit on the DYK four mintues before filing the nomination. It is impossible to read the article and go over all the sources in just four minutes.
 * You stated on Articles for deletion/Political positions of Michael Bloomberg "This article needs to be merged and this page deleted" I see this as a personal attack as it would delete my contributions and make it look like I was never responsible for what would be written. You also misrepresented the truth on the same page stating, "This page appears to be WP:OR that relies almost exclusively upon one source ontheissues.org. There is already a page of Muchael Bloomberg, thus I question the need for an article on his politics where the most reliable source is the RollingStone!" "Personally I agree with Hameo below and think this should be merged with the main article" If you actually read the article you would see that many different sources are used. Calling it Original research is a misrepresenation of the truth.
 * You nominated the article Allegations of Iranian state terrorism for deletion when it should have been placed under suggested moves. You only did this because it was another article written by me. I'll admit I did the same thing but I'll admit that I was wrong. You then state, "But in this case, the individual showed himself to lack civility" You knew I was upset and until that day I had showed civility. You tried to incite me even more by nominating this article for deletion citing that this case is different because the author is incivil.

I am sorry for not assuming good faith but I think you should look at my reasons for calling you a troll and understand where I was coming from. I hope we can put this behind us now and move on.-- Southern Texas  19:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I accept your apology. I'll be honest with you, when I read the Bloomberg page, I was on the fence.  I was not sure what to think of it.  It felt like OR and relies heavily on one source (a source whose objectivity I do not know---but I question pages of this nature.)  The very nature of the subject cries out that it could have potential POV issues.  To me creating this page feels like a way to create a political page while bypassing the regular Bloomberg editors.  This is the type of page, IMHO, which should evolve out of another page.  E.g. the section in the Bloomberg article became so big that it was spun off of that page.  When a page with this much political content is created in a vacuum by one person, who has shown himself to have a strong political position (as demonstrated in the other article I had just read by you)  that sends a red flag up.  Thus I took it to the AFD to see what others had to say about it.  If they came back and said, "Balloonman you are full of it," I would have accepted that position.  I figured that it was a toss up as to how they would respond.
 * The State Terrorism page is one whose concept I completely oppose. Whether it is of the US or Iran or whomever, I don't believe that those types of pages are in their very nature NPOV or appropraite for Wikipedia.  But presidence exists for those types of pages---assuming that they include the word "alleged" or "Allegations of" (the one about US state sponsored terrorism has been nominated for deletion something like 7 times).  When I nominated it for deletion, my primary hope was deletion, but I knew that wouldn't happen--thus I conceded that it would pass an AFD and pushed for renaming.  That was a miscalculation on my part.  If I had psuhed for deletion, people would have said "Keep but rename."  Instead, they responded appropriately by saying, "wrong place balloonman."
 * I probably could have handled it differently as well. But when you came out firing guns ablazing, it showed me that there would be no reasoning with you (at least at that particular moment.)  Just a hint for navigating Wikipedia... if somebody takes you to AFD or challenges a page of your, don't get defensive and don't start calling them names.  I've had several pages nominated for deletion.  Generally, if you are polite, answer their questions, you will get people who are sitting on the fence to give you the benefit of the doubt. When you start calling people names, you get those fence sitters to go against you.  I've been expecting Vantucky to nominate the Shaolin-Do article for deletion for months.  I honestly don't know if it should be kept or deleted.  But because you nominated it in the manner that you did, it has a better chance of surviving than if Vantucky had nominated it!  It shouldn't be that way, but it is.  We are humans and we do let human emotions get in the way, thus, I am more than willing to let bygones be bygones.Balloonman 20:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. I am glad we put this behind us.-- Southern Texas  20:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm really glad to see this, guys. This makes my day. :)
 * I'd like to add and re-emphasize that AfDs are NEVER about the author of the article (and if they are nominated because of a personal dispute between two editors, the nominations should immediately be closed). As such, if your article is AfD'd, you should DEFINITELY assume that the person who nominated it is doing so in good faith and has the best interests of WP in mind.  It's relatively rare for the reason for nomination to be a direct attack against another editor - more often than not, AfD disputes arise because the author or an editor who's contributed a lot to the article takes the nomination personally.  Just something to keep in mind for the future. :) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 20:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, Balloonman, Texas also apologized for the blowup on WP:WQA in the original alert. If you have time, would you respond to it there as well?  Thanks. :) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 20:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nod, this is particularly true when there has been no history between the two established editors. I did NOT nominate the articles because it was personal, but rather because I had concerns about both aricles.  Also, I did go to the WQA and said I was content.Balloonman 22:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you muchly. :) (unwatching) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 02:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Re
I'm so sorry. Yes, I have been trying to be careful, but sometimes I made silly mistakes. I will be more careful. Please forgive me. Thank you for your pointing out. Oda Mari 20:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Relieved. But I have to admit I didn't check the user's other edits. Sometimes I do. BTW, there's an IP user from Taipei repeats vandalism on Republic of China related articles. What can I do? Page protect? Warning? Please let me know when you have time. And it would be grateful if you take a look at my contribution page and see what he/she's done.Oda Mari 20:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Advice please. As for Wii, I think it was something related to edit conflict. What should I do when an edit conflict notice appears? Cancel my edit and wait for a minute and see the history of the article? Or is it OK just to leave from the edit page? Or...do you think that I am too careless to do vandal revert? Thank you.Oda Mari 06:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you always. My explanation above was a terrible one. What I meant is I wondered I probably did something wrong when edit conflict happened. That why I asked the question. Oda Mari 13:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
Let me know when you are nominated for adminship, I will be sure to put in my support. Also I see you support the Republican party, not that it matters but I have to take back everything I said, I was clearly wrong.-- Southern Texas  21:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Jesus myth hypothesis
.....soon to be renamed! Thanks for your response to the RfC. Outside help such as yours has been vital to keep the discussions civil and balanced and your contributions there are much appreciated - looks like they did the trick too in getting all to agree. Thanks! Sophia 05:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Acorahrama
WP:DENY ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure if I agree with it, but I can accept it.Balloonman 04:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Vandal-only accounts are designed to waste time, this one happened to have wasted some of yours and mine. I prefer not to draw attention to unproductive moments in wiki-history ;) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That we can agree on... I've just not given any thought to the subject in that manner... I'll have to think about it... it does have some value...Balloonman 04:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Random Smile!


WarthogDemon 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. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. -WarthogDemon 06:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 09:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA is ready
I've added my co-nom, so it's ready for you to transclude. Don't forget to sign your acceptance. --Ginkgo100talk 14:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You think I'm one of the 'tougher' judges?
Any specific reason? I'm not angry, just curious. I think I'm around 50/50 on RFAs, not counting ones that are like "HI I'VE BEEN HERE TWO WEEKS ADMIN PLZ". --L ucid 15:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

RFA
No problem. I like seeing people I support at RFA become admins. I think you will pass yours fairly easily.  New  England  Review Me! 15:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

call
hey call me when you can --Ginkgo100talk 17:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA
Hey Balloonman!

Just wanted to wish you luck on your RFA. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester  23:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Tagging living people
Hi -- I was just going through some of the articles you've created regarding your RfA & noted that you don't tag living people as such, as recommended in WP:BLP. Such tagging warns about adding unsourced material, educating newbies about the BLP policy, and also helps to ensure that the articles are patrolled so that libellous material is less likely to go unnoticed. You can tag by adding the WP:Biography template with 'living' marked as 'yes' or, if you prefer, just by using Blp. Cheers, Espresso Addict 11:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

GA reviews
One of the minor problems with GA is that its terms are ambiguous. What I want is a couple of talk pages where you have shepherded a nomination through to approval or rejection of GA status. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I will consider that, which I find quite reassuring. Please remind me 24 hours before the discussion expires. It might reassure others who think the process broken if you went into why you think so; I think I'll make that a question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Optional question
Hello Balloonman, I saw the answer and it seems good enough for me. I asked the question because many admins block newcomers on sight for very small things-- Pheonix  ( talk )  11:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback... I was worried that you were going to be concerned about my lack of experience in this area. I've noticed that some people are very PRO-vandal fighters.  I think it is a crucial role, but don't personally enjoy it.Balloonman 12:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, after examining your contribs, I noticed that you are polite to other users, so why not newcomers?. You also seem to be the sort of person who would give a warning before blocks. I also voted based solely on the newcomer question last time. This time I took everything else into consideration-- Pheonix  ( talk )  18:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well balloonman, I made a new sig and thought I'd ask someone's opinion of it. Is it clear enough or are there any problems?-- Pheonix  ( talk )  20:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Issue
Balloonman can you help me? I am having an issue with an editor who is trying to force his opinions on the Woodrow Wilson page by inserting a "racist" category without discussion.-- Southern Texas  03:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know for sure if you saw the latter issue I raised. But I think it speaks well.-- Southern Texas  03:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA was successful!
Congratulations, I have closed your RfA as successful and you are now an administrator! If you have any questions regarding adminship, feel free to ask me! Good luck. --Deskana (banana) 02:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations
I get to be the first to congratulate you! It helps that you're in the same room and just told me your RfA was closed. --Ginkgo100talk 02:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Congrats Balloonman! Darn, I wasn't the first...anyways congrats! --H| H irohisat  Talk 02:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Balloonman you deserve the mop! now that I just pushed my blatant POV, you can now perm ban me :) ▪◦▪ ≡ЅiREX≡Talk 03:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! :) Firsfron of Ronchester  12:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The Newest Admin
Wow... to those who supported my nomination, thanks. Now, I'm off, much to my wife's chagrin, to do some real work (eg the type that I make a living doing) rather than abusing my new tools.Balloonman 04:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ok just don't Wheel war with her ;-)▪◦▪ ≡ЅiREX≡Talk 04:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * PROTIP: Make sure that your router is positioned so that your dog house gets a good wifi signal -- lucid 04:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations and good luck.-- Southern Texas  04:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Congrats! Politics rule 07:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)



Congratulations
Congratulations ona your Adminship-- Pheonix  ( talk )  17:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Mother Teresa delist review
Since you weighed in last time, thought you may want to know that the Mother Teresa article was referred for review...again! Stubborn editors want another try. --Anietor 00:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the WP:CANVAS heads up. I actually didn't know about that, although it does seem logical. Nothing I can do to undo it, but I have now notified editors that voted on the other side about the issue so they can participate in the debate as well. --Anietor 01:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations
Well done with the successful RfA - a mop & bucket fully deserved ;) EyeSereneTALK 18:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Refreshing WP:TDYK
Hi Balloonman! I was wondering if you would mind refreshing the WP:TDYK page. It's been over 6 hours and I have a request in the queue that I am excited about. Thanks for considering this request.  T i a m a t  13:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Help us out!
Please post in Talk:Iraq Resolution. We're in desparate need of outside opinion. Isaac Pankonin 04:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm embarrassed. Thank you for pointing that out to me.  Isaac Pankonin 07:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I like what you did in the Supremacy Clause section. It flows a lot better.  Isaac Pankonin 04:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Daphne Pearson
Ouch, thanks. I was going from here and ignoring the conversions that were made between the EGM/AM/EM and GC. When newspapaers etc run obits of GC winners (e.g. Kenneth Farrow) they are generally given the postnominals GC because the original medal was exchanged. Sorry again, RHB - Talk 10:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong.
Forumshop says "moving from forum to forum if the user didn't get the result he wanted." This is not applicable in your recent hasty and inappropriate close. The CfD was for a category. The AfD is for an article. The RfC is for the use of the phrase elsewhere. These are three separate actions, that were taken simultaneously (not sequentially, as forumshop implies) after disparate discussions on the subject in three different locations by two sets of people. I think you have made a mistake, and had better reopen it. Hornplease 05:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The attempt is to find a sympathetic audience for a position. This is bad etiquette and WP:POINT.Balloonman 05:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The audience, sympathetic and unsympathetic already exists. He was not attempting to create one out of thin air when several previous audiences had been unsympathetic, which is what FORUMSHOP was designed to control. He sought a sympathetic audience exactly as much as anyone who has taken an article to AfD. In this case, he meticulously followed procedure. Three different problems, three different locations for their solution. I am not sure what the violation of etiquette is here. And it is definitely not disruptive. Closing down discussion, now....Hornplease 06:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Seriously, I suggest you look into this further and then revoke your closing of the AfD and relist. Failing which, I would suggest you take it to AN; if unwilling, I will take it to AN/I in due course. (Very occasionally, I do wish that I had taken the time to request the bits two years ago sometime. This is one of those weeks.)Hornplease 06:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do what you feel is appropriate, but I must remind you of WP:CIVIL I find your threats to be anything but civil. As it stands, there was a request for COMMENT. The RFC was to determine what should be done about a term wherein two sides are debating whether or not it is a nelogism.  One of the options for said discussion was AFD.  As the RFC discussing said term hadn't been given a chance to weigh in, I believe it is inappropriate to jump to AFD/CFD.  Plus, my first pick between the three will be to leave it in RFC and if the RFC determines that it is in fact a Nelogism, then move it to AFD/CFD.Balloonman 06:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, I phrased it carefully so it wouldnt be "Do what I want, or I will tell on you". It isn't a threat, it was seriously just an opportunity for you to review your blocking again. I have never in years opened an incident report at AN/I, and I would have liked to avoid it, that's all. Which is why I suggested, hopefully, that you take it yourself to AN for further input, which is not really that unusual. It also serves as notice that I might take something to AN/I tomorrow, which is considered civil! If you think that this is incivil, I do envy your experience on WP.
 * Your 'first pick' notwithstanding, that is not policy, which states that (a) content disputes across several articles (b) the notability of a particular article (c) the usefulness of a category are all different things. Consider the possibility that the article is deleted as a neologism, the RfC comes to no consensus in general terms, and the CfD is renamed. These decisions do not necessarily depend on the conclusion that the term is a neologism; several other points about notability and NPOV are involved in each case. What you have in effect, contrary to policy, attempted to do, is to disallow each discussion to take place.
 * Note, in any case, the AfD was decided on long before the RfC, which was requested in response to objections at the removal of the term from other articles. Whatever: you cut off discussion, that is hardly ever good. Hornplease 07:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I went back and re-read the discussion. And reopened the AFD, but left the CFD closed.  The CFD ultimately has the same purpose as the AFD RFC---How to handle this terms usage in Wikipedia.  What are the better alternatives/etc.  The RFC should be expanded to include the Categories.  It would be problematic if the CFD said "keep" and the RFC said "Get rid of".  Or vice versa.  But since I do see a consensus for the AFD, I've reinstated it.Balloonman 07:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It will not be problematic if the AfD succeeds, but the CfD (that would no doubt be relaunched) fails - different concepts apply, and most categories do not have articles wiith the same name. The term should not be removed from articles in advance of the AfD decision, and (as Andries has admitted in one case) the way in which he was removing them was extremely crude, and causing errors in them.  Johnbod 12:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess the category:dharmic religions should be renamed into category:Indian religions. Andries 21:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Balloonman, thanks for re-considering your opinion about forumshopping which was by the way an implausible accusation because 1. I had proposed a centralized place for discussion and 2. the discussion about afd was started by others long before I started the AFD (so it could not have been an attempt to get a favorable audience as Hornplease pointed out) The AFD and the RFC were for two different issues. The AFD for notability of the term and the RFC for use of the term throughout Wikipedia, so, no, I did not forumshop for the same problem at two differnent places. There were two problems that I addressed at two different places. Hornplease is fully correct in his opinion about my actions. Andries 21:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC:Dharmic religion
I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure what you're asking for. MessedRocker (talk) 08:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)
The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Nescio
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Requests for comment/Nescio. -- Isaac Pankonin 10:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You should be able to endorse this if you choose. Isaac Pankonin 00:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Rotten sources
Response to your challenge of 15 September 2007, "Show me recognized independent sources citing Rotten and I'll back down."
 * Even a cursory check revealed the most prestigious US papers citing Rotten.com as a source: The Wall Street Journal cites Rotten, as does the New York Times (Nicholas Wade, "Was Paper on Bomb a Parody?") in November 2001.

Above is copy of my reply at

Love, Quatloo 01:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Military brat
Please go look at the situation at Talk:Military brat; an admin moved it, then it got moved back, it's a mess. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)
The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 08:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Successful RfA - Thank you!
Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It was successful, and I was promoted to Administrator today. I appreciate the support! &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 23:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ACL LOGO.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:ACL LOGO.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My (KWSN's) RFA
Thank you for commenting my recent (and successful!) RfA. It passed at at 55/17/6. I'll try to make some changes based on your comments. Kwsn  (Ni!)  01:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)
The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 12:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)