Hi there Balloonman. I've noticed that you have mentioned several times, the misuse of {{ db-g1}} by New Page Patrollers. I wondered what you thought of the new G1 wording that I added to the template tonight. Do you have any suggestions, by any chance? - NuclearWarfare contact me My work 04:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I had just started a cycle of being bold, and even noted that in one of my edit summaries. I have updated db-g1 slightly since then, and will also start a discussion on WT:CSD right now. - NuclearWarfare contact me My work 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For reporting your fifth vandal to WP:AIV, thus making you an AIV-Ace, I award you this Defender of the Wiki Barnstar. It was an unfortunate oversight that nobody noticed, until now, that you became an AIV-Ace on 13 August 2007 with your fifth report. In order, they have been: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Bravo on a job well done! And smile, it's just another manic Monday :) -- Hammersoft ( talk) 17:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC) |
I got your message. I just wanted to remove it myself so I could say I withdrew at my own wish and with a sense of control over my own destiny on here. Sorry if I upset you. AdirondackMan ( talk) 02:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
There, it is done. I removed myself. AdirondackMan ( talk) 02:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that you reviewed the events that surrounded the Blank.jpg with respect to User:Spinningspark's SSP. You seem to have accurately perceived the events that led us to where we are today. Forgive me if I am incorrect in my reading of your comments, but I am not sure if you are aware that Spinningpark filed both an SSP and later a checkuser: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BreakEvenMatt, naming all of the same individuals in the original SSP. Your comments here only referred to the SSP, and I wanted to make sure you were aware of the most recent development. I appreciate that you recommended that the SSP be withdrawn, and I would ask that you extend that recommendation to the currently-pending checkuser.
I do have some very serious concerns regarding whole incident that I hope to further discuss with you, but I would like that discussion to wait until the checkuser is resolved. Cheers! -- HoboJones ( talk) 17:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
No, I didn't, and I apologized to him. Also, would you please kindly delete this edit Jonathan321 ( talk) 02:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick reply; I've replied myself. I can see this is an issue that has been discussed many times before, so I'm sorry for bringing it up again, but I just don't think the current title is ideal. Terraxos ( talk) 23:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
My reaction when you offered to nom me for RfA was surprise; my reaction on reading your nom statement was shock and awe. By giving me a push, you saved me a lot of time and worry. Thanks for the work you've done for me and everyone else you've nommed. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 03:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your talk page comment. It bothers me that a few trolls or ill-meaning editors can just derail an entire process, and no one steps in to defend the candidate--and at the same time, the candidate is barred from defending himself. That seems like a fundamental flaw in the process.
For the record, I have collaborated with a number of administrators and long-time contributors at Wikipedia (whose names I will not mention here), (especially at WP:LAW and its related projects), and have had nothing but good relations with all parties involved. Were they on WP at this time, they would certainly have given me their unqualified support. The fact that obvious ill-meaning editors can pick a fight, and having the other onlookers side with them rather than actually examine my record, is totally unfair. I'm not sure exactly how much good I would be able to do as an admin (and for a long time, I actively avoided admin discussions and nominations), but it just seems to me that the entire process makes no sense and is biased against candidates who, in most cases, would do a good job. We're supposed to be building an encyclopedia here, not a social club. -- Eastlaw ( talk) 05:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
While I opposed and provided some reasoning, the events at his RfA - as well as a lot of RfA's that get snowballed/ speedy-closed - have somehow prompted me to make an RfA talk page post you may be interested in (located here). Master&Expert ( Talk) 07:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
SIS 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. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks for your remarks. I've answered on my Talkpage.
SIS
14:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks very much, whenever you have the time I look forward to hearing from you. — Realist 2 19:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
You're quite right, I'm very much in favour of a much more adult level of discussion than has become the norm here on on wikipedia, so I can't ever imagine myself being upset or complaining about what you or anyone else thinks of me personally. You're also right that I don't understand wikipedia's civility policy, and likely wouldn't agree with it even if I did.
I only bother to say this because of this comment of yours: "... it might require our calling each other names before we get to the point where true collaboration can be achieved". I don't agree that name calling is necessary, but I strongly believe that being able to comment honestly without fear of the wiki civility police jumping in with both feet firmly missing the target will determine whether or not this project has a future. -- Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense to me (and I am a speedy deleter), but the title implies you hate the speedy deleters themselves -- reading the essay though, it seems it's more that you hate when speedy deleters use incorrect rationales or are impatient? Somno ( talk) 06:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Several people have edited my latest essay, they all add the note, "I hope you don't mind." This is wikipedia, if I minded, I wouldn't have posted it here... I APPRECIATE the copy editing others do. So, if you've made improvement to "Why I hate speedy deleters" or any of my other essays, then I thank you for helping me out.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 07:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Yup, today, December 6 is my birthday. Thanks for the wishes. So, I take it you won't ever forget my birthday now? :-) =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The
November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
15:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey B'man. This may seem a bit random, nothing has spurred it on really, just curious. I've read several times that you don't really like to see more than two nominations on an RfA. Can I ask why this is? I would have assumed multiple nominations would indicate greater community trust, if anything.
Cheers,
— Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Who killed your 10 year old wedding present by putting it into the freezer?--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 07:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Are you jokingly repeating my last two lines? I don't get it. Mind you, I've been generally a bit thick today, so it's no real surprise! -- Dweller ( talk) 16:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Balloonman! Indeed, I completely misinterpreted what you meant by point #1 in the original essay. After the elaboration (I'm flattered that you wrote it to clarify our small dispute), it is clear that we agree on this point.
However, I think the heading 'act like an admin' is inappropriate for the subject matter—IMO, it should be more like, as you said, 'act like a decent human being'. You don't need to be an admin or 'admin hopeful' to be loyal to the project, mature, responsible and help other users. As they always say in the army's various command courses, never forget that before you are a commander, you are a soldier, and before that you are a human being. I think that if any regular Wikipedia contributor doesn't follow that principle, we have a problem, regardless of RfA status. To take that one step further, I believe that if a Wikipedian doesn't do at least most of the things you outlined in 'act like an admin', they should never (within reason) be an admin. Admin coaching can't change a human being into being more mature, more civil, or more helpful—and if it does, the change is likely artificial and only reflects the user's desire to become an admin—which is one of the main reasons I oppose the very concept of admin coaching.
In the specific case of Dendodge, there are just so many problems that I don't know where to begin. I won't write an essay on why I think he should not be an admin (and this is phenomenal in itself—for all previous RfA candidates I've opposed, the concerns were specific and could be addressed reasonably quickly—I did not actually think they were unfit for adminship), but will try to explain a bit more when I'm coming from. Basically, Dendodge reminds me of myself at the time of the first RfA in June 2006. It's not that I was a bad user, unhelpful, incivil, or disloyal to the encyclopedia. I actually displayed very clearly all the qualities you talk about in 'act like an admin', and had (for the time) a very good record of article contributions. However, I really wanted to become an admin and tried very hard, despite often having no actual interest or clue in the things I was doing. A good example is the help desk, in which I too was active. The other glaring similarity is replying and arguing oppose !votes. The third similarity is an opinionated user page and a shaky record of upholding one of Wikipedia's core policies (BLP for Dendodge, copyrights for me). I was rightfully denied adminship at that time, but this does not mean I would've abused the tools; it was just a clue to stop trying so hard and start contributing more to the non-admin areas, which I will talk about in the next paragraph (hope you're still with me ;)). Of course, aside from the above, Dendodge has a plethora of issues which were outlined in the opposes. But you don't need to look very far to see the quote on his userpage saying "This page looks rubbish in Internet Explorer - it's not my fault, it's Microsoft's for making such a useless browser. Get Firefox - it's free, and better in every way!", which strikes me as a particularly immature comment.
About article writing vs. 'admin areas': I never said that working in 'admin areas' was bad, just that it was bad when done at the expense of article writing, and this unfortunate trait is easy to see in many of today's RfA candidates (many of whom were admin-coached). My understanding is that, while it is possible to gain policy understanding by working mostly in admin areas, when you work mostly on articles for a long time, policy understanding is guaranteed. I talked about this a bit in my recent RfA (follow-up to A1).
So yeah, sorry for the elaborate pseudo-rant, just that this 'working in admin areas and admin coaching to pass RfA' business frustrates me very much since I got semi-interested in the process again after my recent go (to be honest, both the nom and the success came as a great suprise). Hope I didn't bore you to death, assuming you read all that! Cheers, Ynhockey ( Talk) 03:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
P.S. This page doesn't have a link to your talk archives, is this on purpose? Just letting you know. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 04:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I think your essay is pretty insulting to be honest. You could same the same thing about quite a few different classes of vandalism fighters that fall under the exact same classifications as people who clean up the site so it's not turned into a disgusting wasteland of 12 year olds writing about themselves and companies advertising. I think you're jealous that no one lets you CSD articles :( Cheer up, bud. 06:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
On CHU, it's not just the contributions and user logs we go through. We also check the edits on other language wikipedias, and sometimes match editing patterns on commons for different tasks (for example in determining SUL issues). Also, we run a google search check on suspect usernames, and at times also check if the desired username is not offensive in another language. There are times when we need to closely coordinate with blocking admins, and occasionally stewards, and if major issues crop up, we also alert WP:AN to watch certain users or editing patterns. So, its not a simple button click to change a username. There is a lot that goes on behind the scenes. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
When you can't find a CSD criteria to fit, just make one up. – iridescent 22:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you, or any passing Talk Page Watchers, offer a second (third, fourth) opinion on Royal Marines A.F.C. (see also this thread on my talk). My instinctive reaction is that this is a viable article and worth keeping – IMO, "verifiable" and "potentially useful" trump any arbitrary "not important enough" guideline, which are clearly intended to prevent articles being posted about Little League teams and group-of-friends-in-the-park outfits, not teams like this which represent a significant institution and only fail on a technicality; because the team was wound up and re-founded, this new incarnation has not yet had the chance to take part in a notable competition. (The English football season runs September-July, so they won't be able to enter said competitions for nine more months.) I really dislike seeing this type of article deleted by the self-proclaimed Notability Patrol (you know who they are), but do you think I'm overreacting here? – iridescent 23:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I've seen you around and have been impressed by you. Keep it up. Yanksox ( talk) 03:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
User:Balloonman/CSD G1 survey This is a review of 25 CSD's tagged for G1. It is in rough draft form, but would like to get the opinion of those who watchlist my page.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 07:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Made most of your changes as I agreed with them.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I didn't want to comment further on the RfA, it's going too off-topic anyway, but I just wanted to tell you, that you are of course correct, when you point out that there are valid reasons to oppose based on userboxes. My argument was more about those userboxes which say "This user is a Christian/atheist/Democrat/Republican/Socialist/whatever", i.e. those which only show what the user in question believes in, nothing more. I think we both agree that those userboxes should not be a reason for oppose, at least not if the user has no track record of being biased in any way. I do think the "evil atheist conspiracy" is another one of them btw., referring to a fictional parody organisation and nothing more. It's no worse than one saying "This user supports the Democratic Party" (actually it's less worse, as the Democratic Party exists). But anyway, I just wanted to leave you a note that I have not ignored your response to my comment and that I agree with you. Have a nice day :-) So Why 07:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
This is something I've been thinking about for some time now, and (as your talkpage is currently a noticeboard on all things CSD), I thought it made more sense to raise it here first instead of at WT:CSD, so if there's a good reason against it people could raise it quietly instead of 200 irate NPP-ers descending on my talkpage.
Do you think it would make sense to TFD, or at least deprecate, {{ db}} and {{ db-reason}} as templates? It's a relic of our early days when the deletion policy was more flexible, and doesn't appear to serve any useful purpose any longer, as we have {{ db-a5}}, {{ db-r2}} etc – plus textual {{ db-bio}}, {{ db-redirect}} etc equivalents – for every speedy criteria.
Since there's no longer such a thing as a valid speedy tagging that doesn't fit into any of the named CSD categories, there seems to be no point having a "general" template. If anything, the existence of this template encourages people to mis-tag articles {{db|hoax}}, {{db|dicdef}} and so on. Removing this template – and hence NPP-ers ability to make up deletion reasons for pages they don't like – would force anyone wanting to speedy tag an article to find an appropriate reason for deletion, and if they couldn't find one they would have to go through a more appropriate deletion process. Am I missing some really obvious reason why we need to keep these? – iridescent 14:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The user you referred to in your latest thread on the RFA Talk page was Amicon, Aka How do you turn this on, right? Are you aware this user has invoked their right to vanish? Just thought I'd tell you. I sincerely doubt How will be running for any kind of office. 86.29.235.46 ( talk) 16:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The singular of "criteria" is... criterion. I know, I know, I'd get a life, if only I wasn't so busy editing Wikipedia. -- Dweller ( talk) 16:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
When you have a free moment, can you please check your email? Thanks! Ecoleetage ( talk) 17:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
You have email. Could you respond via email please? Thanks :) - NuclearWarfare contact me My work 22:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Tell me how I did with A1 CSD's?--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
10: It was G1---NOT G10! 12: The only reason why I wouldn't go with A1 is because the page name gives it context. It is near a school/basement/etc. Also, remember if I kept two of the Admin's edits here, the percentage would have blossomed in the keep category. The only reason it isn't higher is because I stopped looking at two Admins after realizing that they had no clue.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 22:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I judge differently in enough cases that I'm giving them all
What I do differently from Balloonman:
My interpretation:
My view on these:
Comments
I just saw at
WT:CSD that you
did one on G10 as well. The cases there seem quite clear, so just a minor point with
the fourth example: if the creator blanked then G7 fits better than A3. If an article has a non-no-content revision in its history it shouldn't typically be deleted A3. Of course, if the one revision that had content was clearly deleteable as a G10 then I'm also OK with calling an attack page an attack page.
BTW, I've left you
a note at my talk page. Cheers,
Amalthea
18:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, you closed NuclearWarfare's RFA based on this diff, but I read it as though he's saying he wanted that particularly discussion closed, not the RFA? Or were there other discussions with the candidate elsewhere? GTD 14:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
What the hell just happened? – iridescent 17:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Wow. I didn't see this until the full 20 minutes had passed. But to me it seemed at first glance to be an ok idea. What shocked me in the discussion was how many people have gone through name changes. It has never occurred to me to change my User Name. I can definitely understand how someone might need to do it for privacy reasons, but I really would have guessed that name changes would have been extremely rare.
Well, it was an interesting idea. Hope your bleeding has now stopped. Un sch ool 04:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I have replied to your comments on my talk page. Thanks for dropping by. :) NoSeptember 21:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I have to say that normally I don't read many essays on Wikipedia but came across this and thought it really hit the nail on the head. The folks that look to speedily delete other people's articles often are not thoughtful about what they are doing. I came across a particularly frustrating one yesterday. I luckily happened to be on and spotted an article of interest get tagged. I was able to intervene and help out but 99 times out of 100 it would have been gone and the person writing it would probably be done with wikipedia. I had my own issues with a guns-blazing admin when I was just starting in the project and was fortunate to come across people who kept me from getting discouraged. You are doing a good service.
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For your tremendous work on raising awareness of the standards in place for speedy deletions and drawing attention to the inconsistent quality of work from certain practitioners of CSD |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 05:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC) |
Please stop tagging pages with the AfD template for the Devon Kennard article. The AFD only belongs on that page. Thanks. BlueAg09 ( Talk) 07:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding your multiple AfD submissions, if you read the text at the guideline preceding the WP:ATHLETE section, you'll note that it clearly states "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability". All of the articles you have nominated meet WP:N. You might want to consider withdrawing your nominations. Thanks. -- ZimZalaBim talk 17:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I can't tell if it's ignorance, some genetic opposition to Div-I college football, or some combination of the two, but please put the axe down and get off your horse. I would understand your argument if you were deleting articles for walk-ons on no-name teams. Instead, in Pryor and Clausen, you have chosen the number 1 ranked players in their class. Pryor has been called the best high school athlete ever. They both start for teams that have a larger following than most NFL teams. I just don't get it. Rusty ( talk) 06:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
FYI: I've closed the various AfDs that remained open given your endorsement(s) for early closure above. -- ZimZalaBim talk 14:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I was looking through with your essays and stuff like that, and I suddenly have the urge to nominate you to be a bearucrat. I would perfer asking for your consent before proceeding, since being denied by the nominee is quite embarrasing! Leujohn ( talk) 11:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
|
|
Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message! Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Dendodge Talk Contribs, 17:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC) |
It was brought up in this RfA, around Oppose #8. This is just a courtesy notify, feel free to delete this entry. Townlake ( talk) 22:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Balloonman! Thanks for bringing up the discussion; Based on his comments, I already like this candidate! Having said that, I don't think you should egg him on so much for adminship :) you suggested that he should write some content, and he did (not too bad at all!) which is great, and I hope he likes it and continues writing. But as I said before, I'm opposed to any form of coaching, including basing the discussion entirely on how well he would do in an RfA. Instead, maybe make it sound more like friendly advice from a more senior editor :) I certainly believe that if he focuses on contributing, as he has done so far (even if it's not article building), and not cheating the process, then someone will eventually take the initiative and nominate him, and he will pass if he's ready at that point. If not, maybe some other time—just like being an admin isn't a big deal, not being one isn't a big deal either.
In any case, I don't think there anything I can contribute to the discussion, but it was an interesting read. Thanks! Just make sure to tell him to include a link to his user, talk or both, in the signature. Cheers, Ynhockey ( Talk) 00:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Once again thank you for going out of your way to nominate me for RfA. I wanted to state this openly for others to see, not via email. I haven't been myself in recent days but I'm trying to get back to normal now. While I'm pretty sure I won't run for RfA ever again, certainly not within the next 9 months, I would still love to receive future advise from you and consider you a friend and someone to look up to here at Wikipedia. All the best. — Realist 2 05:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I saw your edit summary and agree... I would have no problem defending an early close, but decided that since he is an admin on two other projects, that we should at least get some input first. I was closing it at (0,0,0) which is OK in the case of a true noob, but for somebody with his experience, I wanted to let others chime in.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 23:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I wanted to come here, too. I noticed that you've changed your votes and participated strongly in the discussion. I think that's great. I feel that in this RfA we are truly discussing and deliberating over the decision. Many are posing thoughts and concerns; differing views of adminship; and the effects a promotion would have on the project as a whole. And, for the most part, the discussion appears to be extremely civil. All-in-all, I wanted to say, I think this is a productive RfA and that you're a strong part of that discussion. Regards, Lazulilasher ( talk) 17:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Would you be able to look at Sandwichmas and the edit history and confirm to me I was right in removing the nonsense and vandalism db tags? I'm pretty sure I'm right, but it never hurts to confirm it. Ironholds ( talk) 15:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Matthew gives a very detailed answer regarding possible problems to the Pump proposal on "editprotected" at User_talk:MBisanz#.22editprotected.22. (I'm watchlisting over there.) - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 03:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Ϣere
Spell
Checkers is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate the
Winter or
Summer Solstice,
Xmas,
Eid,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hannukah or even the
Saturnalia this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec08}} to your friends' talk pages.
Hi Balloonman, thanks for taking the trouble to give me that feedback. Ϣere Spell Checkers 23:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I was just wondering...
Speedy deletion, applied correctly, should only be used in cases where there is no reasonable chance that a legitimate article could be formed about a particular subject. The very nature of speedy deletion dictates that administrators are allowed to delete pages with no discussion: i.e., admins may, without defying policy, delete pages under the CSD regardless the page has been tagged for deletion. Tagging a page for speedy deletion is identical in function to reporting a vandal to Administrator Intervention Against Vandalism, namely, it is a way for non-administrators to alert admins about a task that needs to be performed. If anyone who presently tags pages for deletion were an admin, why would they still tag the page?
Obviously, it is your award, so you can do as you please, but I think that you will disqualify many administrators who are acting according to policy by including that as a requirement in your criteria. J.delanoy gabs adds 09:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Basiclly, you are correct that its less contentious.
comments:
Cheers, Amalthea 03:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I was very surprised and pleased to see this on my talk page today. I didn't think that anyone really paid attention to the articles that I speedily delete (except for the article creators, of course). It's good to know that someone is paying attention and is willing to take the time to make positive comments. Where can I find the rest of winners? I tried to follow the link you supplied ( Past winners) but I got an error message. ... discospinster talk 21:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've signed up for admincoaching, and I have a coach who is doing a pretty good job other than the fact that he's on and off here (and therefore difficult to communicate with), but I need an answer, and since you're probably one of the most experienced Wikipedians in RfA, I think you're the best to give me that answer. I'm I on the right track to adminship? Do you think I would make a good sysop? Do you think I should give RfA a go sooner or later? :) PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 21:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey. You indicated soon after the close of my RfA that you could possibly perform your massive editor review in a few days. I'd like to follow up on that if I may. If you are busy; that's OK, I could wait. NuclearWarfare contact me My work 04:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
You said: "On numerous occasions, I'll save an article in draft form, only to go back to writing the article. Before I have a chance to make another edit, my article will be tagged for deletion and then deleted." Don't you write drafts in your userspace? That usually offers plenty of protection against speedy deletion. Also, while you dislike CSD, I dislike Prod a lot. Often articles end up being deleted unilaterally by two editors just like CSD while they should have been discussed widely. PROD is supposed to be for non-controversial deletions, but in my experience, it's often misapplied. Perhaps you could do an essay on those too. - Mgm| (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that; never done it before :). It was fairly obvious he was going to fail/be closed and the 'crat rules allow for a non-crat closure in such cases, so I thought what the heck. I'll keep your advice around for future situations (although I can't picture them happening very regularly). Ironholds ( talk) 17:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking of asking another editor - yes, I have an offer - to nominate me for adminship early next year. I anticipate spending more time on things where it would be better to use the tools than to ask for administrative assistance.
However, I want a second, or should I say, third set of eyes to review me before I go through the crucible. I've seen your work in RFA and coaching and was wondering if you'd be that additional set of eyes.
If I have issues that would lead you to think I might accidentally misuse the tools or use them inappropriately in any big way, the time to fix them is a few months before using the tools not as you learn them. If you are willing to give me an "editor review with emphasis on things that would be troublesome in an administrator" I would appreciate it. Some pages of User:Davidwr/RFAs may be helpful.
Note - I'm not looking for coaching, just a review to identify weak spots. Knowing these will help me decide when or if to throw my hat in the ring. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 19:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Ecoleetage (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I wanted to ask if you'd mind if I used your CSD reviews to gauge views on some discussions currently going on at WT:CSD? It might get them a lot of traffic and attention, so just wanted to see if you'd mind before possibly getting a hundred eyeballs on them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I've listed List of Indian state and union territory capitals on WP:RM. Since it's a featured list, I didn't want to move it unilaterally. It might possibly need further discussion. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas to you kind Sir! Don't float away in the New Year! ...groans... Scarian Call me Pat! 15:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Might've missed this comment at the VP, so I thought I would ask it directly.
If we have this pool of trustworthy users who specifically want to help edit pages for other editors who are unable to; ie perform edit protected requests, why then is the backlog for Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests and Category:Requested edits frequently weeks and months long?
Further, in my own experience, users collect these minor userrights flags as trophies, if these users are so barely interested in actually doing edits to semi-protected pages that they don't do them at all, how is this new userright not just a trophy for them to collect? MBisanz talk 22:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to see if I could harnass your experience. At Wikiversity, we have a learning project that was started to help admin, but it never really took off. It can be found here. I was wondering if you could help out, give advice, possibly set up some various scenarios that people should explore and discuss, etc. I would mostly want you to continue your activities that you do now in regards to admining, but would offer you a larger environment and the rest to work it through. I know people don't seem to take admining as a serious thing, but there is a lot of technical and ethical aspects that deserve attention in order to produce an effective candidate. Just a thought. Ottava Rima ( talk) 03:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to wish everybody who comes to my pages a Merry Christmas.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me. I'd like to thank you again for nominating me for adminship, (not to mention supporting the continued "torture").
A Nobody
My talk is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
-- A Nobody My talk 02:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar | |
For commenting on something that ought in fact to be commented on. Law Lord ( talk) 10:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC) |
I'm Spartacus!,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)
All the Best.
«l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»
(talk)
When reviewing a candidate for RfA, how do you look at them? In other words, what is your process of reviewing the candidate? I've been looking for a better way to review candidates, and could use some ideas! Happy Holidays! aye matthew ✡ 21:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I really appreciate your kind message to reconcile with me. Although we were in disagreement on the RFA, I think you're a good person. Honestly, the situation mainly stemmed from my misunderstanding of the relocation of my comments to the talk page.l I was first shock at the move because I had thought only comments of some user like K...ber who now left the project would be treated like that. But well, I know I'm a black sheep on RFAs, but that's partially because I'm frustrated at lack of attention from administrators to my editing field (Asian subjects, especially China-Japan-Korea). Anyway, I also highly regard your searching for suitable admin candidates. As for the canvassing, it has no secret. Before and after doing it, I notified my intention to the talk page three times. Best wishes for the new year.-- Caspian blue 08:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, did your research alluded to here lead you to any conclusions about the mistaken target? They have always struck me as a promising candidate. Skomorokh 15:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
On your survey, you've left out the actual reasons for CSD-tagging articles: {{db|I've not heard of the topic}}, {{db|New account's first contribution}}, and {{db|I recently had an argument with the creator}}. Given the number of people who believe these are speedy criteria (" the subject of the article already has a website so doesn't need a Wikipedia page as well" is my current favorite), you and I are obviously committing the cardinal error of Being Against Consensus. – iridescent 02:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Balloonman, I present to you the barnstar of diligence in recognition of all your efforts to help assist and build Wikipedia, its community, and its processes. I may not always agree with you - hell, sometimes my opinion's the exact opposite of yours - but your constant dedication to improving the site in some way or another, whether it be at a noticeboard or RfA or elsewhere, is exemplary. You are a true asset to the project, and I honestly believe that if we had more like you, Wikipedia would be a better place. Master&Expert ( Talk) 11:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks MnE... I appreciate the recognition.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon Take the CSD Survey 21:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Truly a perk of having you as a coach :) I do have a few comments, one of which requires your action. Cheers. Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 08:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I saw your essay. Was wondering if you could give me your opinion on Special:Undelete/Inna_Korobkina and Special:Undelete/Leslie_Stefanson. I'm not getting satisfaction from the deleting admin and am wondering if I should take this to deletion review or just undelete them. Gimmetrow 07:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Balloonman, I just wanted to say thank you for your work in helping to improve CSD. I was surprised at first when I read your essay to notice one of my deletions pointed out as a mistake (deleting Mwuggle), so I made sure that I read the essay very closely. I've now learned some things I didn't know, and I am being much more careful now. I took the rest of the essay to heart too and am making a greater effort to explain to new users what mistakes they made that led their article to being deleted. You've already made a difference in my practices, and I suspect the essay has impacted a great many more CSDers. Thank you very much, and please, if you notice me making any other mistakes, let me know so that I can not do whatever I did again! Karanacs ( talk) 15:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey there, check your e-mail -- I've got an update on a used car that you asked about earlier. :) Ecoleetage ( talk) 18:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I've disgraced my kind RFA nominator yet, I'm glad to say! And thanks again. You have said you are interested in suggestions of possible admin candidates. User:Blueboar seems a helpful, strong policy-focused possibility to me, so I thought I would suggest him as a possibility to fill the current vacuum at RFA. Happy New Year in any case. -- Slp1 ( talk) 18:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Best To Reply At My Talk Page. Thanks.
Dear Balloonman,
Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.
Kind regards,
Majorly talk 21:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi there Balloonman. I've noticed that you have mentioned several times, the misuse of {{ db-g1}} by New Page Patrollers. I wondered what you thought of the new G1 wording that I added to the template tonight. Do you have any suggestions, by any chance? - NuclearWarfare contact me My work 04:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I had just started a cycle of being bold, and even noted that in one of my edit summaries. I have updated db-g1 slightly since then, and will also start a discussion on WT:CSD right now. - NuclearWarfare contact me My work 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For reporting your fifth vandal to WP:AIV, thus making you an AIV-Ace, I award you this Defender of the Wiki Barnstar. It was an unfortunate oversight that nobody noticed, until now, that you became an AIV-Ace on 13 August 2007 with your fifth report. In order, they have been: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Bravo on a job well done! And smile, it's just another manic Monday :) -- Hammersoft ( talk) 17:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC) |
I got your message. I just wanted to remove it myself so I could say I withdrew at my own wish and with a sense of control over my own destiny on here. Sorry if I upset you. AdirondackMan ( talk) 02:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
There, it is done. I removed myself. AdirondackMan ( talk) 02:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that you reviewed the events that surrounded the Blank.jpg with respect to User:Spinningspark's SSP. You seem to have accurately perceived the events that led us to where we are today. Forgive me if I am incorrect in my reading of your comments, but I am not sure if you are aware that Spinningpark filed both an SSP and later a checkuser: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BreakEvenMatt, naming all of the same individuals in the original SSP. Your comments here only referred to the SSP, and I wanted to make sure you were aware of the most recent development. I appreciate that you recommended that the SSP be withdrawn, and I would ask that you extend that recommendation to the currently-pending checkuser.
I do have some very serious concerns regarding whole incident that I hope to further discuss with you, but I would like that discussion to wait until the checkuser is resolved. Cheers! -- HoboJones ( talk) 17:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
No, I didn't, and I apologized to him. Also, would you please kindly delete this edit Jonathan321 ( talk) 02:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick reply; I've replied myself. I can see this is an issue that has been discussed many times before, so I'm sorry for bringing it up again, but I just don't think the current title is ideal. Terraxos ( talk) 23:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
My reaction when you offered to nom me for RfA was surprise; my reaction on reading your nom statement was shock and awe. By giving me a push, you saved me a lot of time and worry. Thanks for the work you've done for me and everyone else you've nommed. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 03:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your talk page comment. It bothers me that a few trolls or ill-meaning editors can just derail an entire process, and no one steps in to defend the candidate--and at the same time, the candidate is barred from defending himself. That seems like a fundamental flaw in the process.
For the record, I have collaborated with a number of administrators and long-time contributors at Wikipedia (whose names I will not mention here), (especially at WP:LAW and its related projects), and have had nothing but good relations with all parties involved. Were they on WP at this time, they would certainly have given me their unqualified support. The fact that obvious ill-meaning editors can pick a fight, and having the other onlookers side with them rather than actually examine my record, is totally unfair. I'm not sure exactly how much good I would be able to do as an admin (and for a long time, I actively avoided admin discussions and nominations), but it just seems to me that the entire process makes no sense and is biased against candidates who, in most cases, would do a good job. We're supposed to be building an encyclopedia here, not a social club. -- Eastlaw ( talk) 05:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
While I opposed and provided some reasoning, the events at his RfA - as well as a lot of RfA's that get snowballed/ speedy-closed - have somehow prompted me to make an RfA talk page post you may be interested in (located here). Master&Expert ( Talk) 07:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
SIS 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. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks for your remarks. I've answered on my Talkpage.
SIS
14:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks very much, whenever you have the time I look forward to hearing from you. — Realist 2 19:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
You're quite right, I'm very much in favour of a much more adult level of discussion than has become the norm here on on wikipedia, so I can't ever imagine myself being upset or complaining about what you or anyone else thinks of me personally. You're also right that I don't understand wikipedia's civility policy, and likely wouldn't agree with it even if I did.
I only bother to say this because of this comment of yours: "... it might require our calling each other names before we get to the point where true collaboration can be achieved". I don't agree that name calling is necessary, but I strongly believe that being able to comment honestly without fear of the wiki civility police jumping in with both feet firmly missing the target will determine whether or not this project has a future. -- Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense to me (and I am a speedy deleter), but the title implies you hate the speedy deleters themselves -- reading the essay though, it seems it's more that you hate when speedy deleters use incorrect rationales or are impatient? Somno ( talk) 06:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Several people have edited my latest essay, they all add the note, "I hope you don't mind." This is wikipedia, if I minded, I wouldn't have posted it here... I APPRECIATE the copy editing others do. So, if you've made improvement to "Why I hate speedy deleters" or any of my other essays, then I thank you for helping me out.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 07:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Yup, today, December 6 is my birthday. Thanks for the wishes. So, I take it you won't ever forget my birthday now? :-) =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The
November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
15:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey B'man. This may seem a bit random, nothing has spurred it on really, just curious. I've read several times that you don't really like to see more than two nominations on an RfA. Can I ask why this is? I would have assumed multiple nominations would indicate greater community trust, if anything.
Cheers,
— Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Who killed your 10 year old wedding present by putting it into the freezer?--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 07:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Are you jokingly repeating my last two lines? I don't get it. Mind you, I've been generally a bit thick today, so it's no real surprise! -- Dweller ( talk) 16:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Balloonman! Indeed, I completely misinterpreted what you meant by point #1 in the original essay. After the elaboration (I'm flattered that you wrote it to clarify our small dispute), it is clear that we agree on this point.
However, I think the heading 'act like an admin' is inappropriate for the subject matter—IMO, it should be more like, as you said, 'act like a decent human being'. You don't need to be an admin or 'admin hopeful' to be loyal to the project, mature, responsible and help other users. As they always say in the army's various command courses, never forget that before you are a commander, you are a soldier, and before that you are a human being. I think that if any regular Wikipedia contributor doesn't follow that principle, we have a problem, regardless of RfA status. To take that one step further, I believe that if a Wikipedian doesn't do at least most of the things you outlined in 'act like an admin', they should never (within reason) be an admin. Admin coaching can't change a human being into being more mature, more civil, or more helpful—and if it does, the change is likely artificial and only reflects the user's desire to become an admin—which is one of the main reasons I oppose the very concept of admin coaching.
In the specific case of Dendodge, there are just so many problems that I don't know where to begin. I won't write an essay on why I think he should not be an admin (and this is phenomenal in itself—for all previous RfA candidates I've opposed, the concerns were specific and could be addressed reasonably quickly—I did not actually think they were unfit for adminship), but will try to explain a bit more when I'm coming from. Basically, Dendodge reminds me of myself at the time of the first RfA in June 2006. It's not that I was a bad user, unhelpful, incivil, or disloyal to the encyclopedia. I actually displayed very clearly all the qualities you talk about in 'act like an admin', and had (for the time) a very good record of article contributions. However, I really wanted to become an admin and tried very hard, despite often having no actual interest or clue in the things I was doing. A good example is the help desk, in which I too was active. The other glaring similarity is replying and arguing oppose !votes. The third similarity is an opinionated user page and a shaky record of upholding one of Wikipedia's core policies (BLP for Dendodge, copyrights for me). I was rightfully denied adminship at that time, but this does not mean I would've abused the tools; it was just a clue to stop trying so hard and start contributing more to the non-admin areas, which I will talk about in the next paragraph (hope you're still with me ;)). Of course, aside from the above, Dendodge has a plethora of issues which were outlined in the opposes. But you don't need to look very far to see the quote on his userpage saying "This page looks rubbish in Internet Explorer - it's not my fault, it's Microsoft's for making such a useless browser. Get Firefox - it's free, and better in every way!", which strikes me as a particularly immature comment.
About article writing vs. 'admin areas': I never said that working in 'admin areas' was bad, just that it was bad when done at the expense of article writing, and this unfortunate trait is easy to see in many of today's RfA candidates (many of whom were admin-coached). My understanding is that, while it is possible to gain policy understanding by working mostly in admin areas, when you work mostly on articles for a long time, policy understanding is guaranteed. I talked about this a bit in my recent RfA (follow-up to A1).
So yeah, sorry for the elaborate pseudo-rant, just that this 'working in admin areas and admin coaching to pass RfA' business frustrates me very much since I got semi-interested in the process again after my recent go (to be honest, both the nom and the success came as a great suprise). Hope I didn't bore you to death, assuming you read all that! Cheers, Ynhockey ( Talk) 03:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
P.S. This page doesn't have a link to your talk archives, is this on purpose? Just letting you know. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 04:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I think your essay is pretty insulting to be honest. You could same the same thing about quite a few different classes of vandalism fighters that fall under the exact same classifications as people who clean up the site so it's not turned into a disgusting wasteland of 12 year olds writing about themselves and companies advertising. I think you're jealous that no one lets you CSD articles :( Cheer up, bud. 06:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
On CHU, it's not just the contributions and user logs we go through. We also check the edits on other language wikipedias, and sometimes match editing patterns on commons for different tasks (for example in determining SUL issues). Also, we run a google search check on suspect usernames, and at times also check if the desired username is not offensive in another language. There are times when we need to closely coordinate with blocking admins, and occasionally stewards, and if major issues crop up, we also alert WP:AN to watch certain users or editing patterns. So, its not a simple button click to change a username. There is a lot that goes on behind the scenes. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
When you can't find a CSD criteria to fit, just make one up. – iridescent 22:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you, or any passing Talk Page Watchers, offer a second (third, fourth) opinion on Royal Marines A.F.C. (see also this thread on my talk). My instinctive reaction is that this is a viable article and worth keeping – IMO, "verifiable" and "potentially useful" trump any arbitrary "not important enough" guideline, which are clearly intended to prevent articles being posted about Little League teams and group-of-friends-in-the-park outfits, not teams like this which represent a significant institution and only fail on a technicality; because the team was wound up and re-founded, this new incarnation has not yet had the chance to take part in a notable competition. (The English football season runs September-July, so they won't be able to enter said competitions for nine more months.) I really dislike seeing this type of article deleted by the self-proclaimed Notability Patrol (you know who they are), but do you think I'm overreacting here? – iridescent 23:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I've seen you around and have been impressed by you. Keep it up. Yanksox ( talk) 03:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
User:Balloonman/CSD G1 survey This is a review of 25 CSD's tagged for G1. It is in rough draft form, but would like to get the opinion of those who watchlist my page.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 07:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Made most of your changes as I agreed with them.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I didn't want to comment further on the RfA, it's going too off-topic anyway, but I just wanted to tell you, that you are of course correct, when you point out that there are valid reasons to oppose based on userboxes. My argument was more about those userboxes which say "This user is a Christian/atheist/Democrat/Republican/Socialist/whatever", i.e. those which only show what the user in question believes in, nothing more. I think we both agree that those userboxes should not be a reason for oppose, at least not if the user has no track record of being biased in any way. I do think the "evil atheist conspiracy" is another one of them btw., referring to a fictional parody organisation and nothing more. It's no worse than one saying "This user supports the Democratic Party" (actually it's less worse, as the Democratic Party exists). But anyway, I just wanted to leave you a note that I have not ignored your response to my comment and that I agree with you. Have a nice day :-) So Why 07:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
This is something I've been thinking about for some time now, and (as your talkpage is currently a noticeboard on all things CSD), I thought it made more sense to raise it here first instead of at WT:CSD, so if there's a good reason against it people could raise it quietly instead of 200 irate NPP-ers descending on my talkpage.
Do you think it would make sense to TFD, or at least deprecate, {{ db}} and {{ db-reason}} as templates? It's a relic of our early days when the deletion policy was more flexible, and doesn't appear to serve any useful purpose any longer, as we have {{ db-a5}}, {{ db-r2}} etc – plus textual {{ db-bio}}, {{ db-redirect}} etc equivalents – for every speedy criteria.
Since there's no longer such a thing as a valid speedy tagging that doesn't fit into any of the named CSD categories, there seems to be no point having a "general" template. If anything, the existence of this template encourages people to mis-tag articles {{db|hoax}}, {{db|dicdef}} and so on. Removing this template – and hence NPP-ers ability to make up deletion reasons for pages they don't like – would force anyone wanting to speedy tag an article to find an appropriate reason for deletion, and if they couldn't find one they would have to go through a more appropriate deletion process. Am I missing some really obvious reason why we need to keep these? – iridescent 14:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The user you referred to in your latest thread on the RFA Talk page was Amicon, Aka How do you turn this on, right? Are you aware this user has invoked their right to vanish? Just thought I'd tell you. I sincerely doubt How will be running for any kind of office. 86.29.235.46 ( talk) 16:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The singular of "criteria" is... criterion. I know, I know, I'd get a life, if only I wasn't so busy editing Wikipedia. -- Dweller ( talk) 16:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
When you have a free moment, can you please check your email? Thanks! Ecoleetage ( talk) 17:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
You have email. Could you respond via email please? Thanks :) - NuclearWarfare contact me My work 22:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Tell me how I did with A1 CSD's?--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
10: It was G1---NOT G10! 12: The only reason why I wouldn't go with A1 is because the page name gives it context. It is near a school/basement/etc. Also, remember if I kept two of the Admin's edits here, the percentage would have blossomed in the keep category. The only reason it isn't higher is because I stopped looking at two Admins after realizing that they had no clue.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 22:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I judge differently in enough cases that I'm giving them all
What I do differently from Balloonman:
My interpretation:
My view on these:
Comments
I just saw at
WT:CSD that you
did one on G10 as well. The cases there seem quite clear, so just a minor point with
the fourth example: if the creator blanked then G7 fits better than A3. If an article has a non-no-content revision in its history it shouldn't typically be deleted A3. Of course, if the one revision that had content was clearly deleteable as a G10 then I'm also OK with calling an attack page an attack page.
BTW, I've left you
a note at my talk page. Cheers,
Amalthea
18:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, you closed NuclearWarfare's RFA based on this diff, but I read it as though he's saying he wanted that particularly discussion closed, not the RFA? Or were there other discussions with the candidate elsewhere? GTD 14:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
What the hell just happened? – iridescent 17:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Wow. I didn't see this until the full 20 minutes had passed. But to me it seemed at first glance to be an ok idea. What shocked me in the discussion was how many people have gone through name changes. It has never occurred to me to change my User Name. I can definitely understand how someone might need to do it for privacy reasons, but I really would have guessed that name changes would have been extremely rare.
Well, it was an interesting idea. Hope your bleeding has now stopped. Un sch ool 04:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I have replied to your comments on my talk page. Thanks for dropping by. :) NoSeptember 21:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I have to say that normally I don't read many essays on Wikipedia but came across this and thought it really hit the nail on the head. The folks that look to speedily delete other people's articles often are not thoughtful about what they are doing. I came across a particularly frustrating one yesterday. I luckily happened to be on and spotted an article of interest get tagged. I was able to intervene and help out but 99 times out of 100 it would have been gone and the person writing it would probably be done with wikipedia. I had my own issues with a guns-blazing admin when I was just starting in the project and was fortunate to come across people who kept me from getting discouraged. You are doing a good service.
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For your tremendous work on raising awareness of the standards in place for speedy deletions and drawing attention to the inconsistent quality of work from certain practitioners of CSD |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 05:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC) |
Please stop tagging pages with the AfD template for the Devon Kennard article. The AFD only belongs on that page. Thanks. BlueAg09 ( Talk) 07:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding your multiple AfD submissions, if you read the text at the guideline preceding the WP:ATHLETE section, you'll note that it clearly states "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability". All of the articles you have nominated meet WP:N. You might want to consider withdrawing your nominations. Thanks. -- ZimZalaBim talk 17:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I can't tell if it's ignorance, some genetic opposition to Div-I college football, or some combination of the two, but please put the axe down and get off your horse. I would understand your argument if you were deleting articles for walk-ons on no-name teams. Instead, in Pryor and Clausen, you have chosen the number 1 ranked players in their class. Pryor has been called the best high school athlete ever. They both start for teams that have a larger following than most NFL teams. I just don't get it. Rusty ( talk) 06:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
FYI: I've closed the various AfDs that remained open given your endorsement(s) for early closure above. -- ZimZalaBim talk 14:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I was looking through with your essays and stuff like that, and I suddenly have the urge to nominate you to be a bearucrat. I would perfer asking for your consent before proceeding, since being denied by the nominee is quite embarrasing! Leujohn ( talk) 11:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
|
|
Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message! Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Dendodge Talk Contribs, 17:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC) |
It was brought up in this RfA, around Oppose #8. This is just a courtesy notify, feel free to delete this entry. Townlake ( talk) 22:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Balloonman! Thanks for bringing up the discussion; Based on his comments, I already like this candidate! Having said that, I don't think you should egg him on so much for adminship :) you suggested that he should write some content, and he did (not too bad at all!) which is great, and I hope he likes it and continues writing. But as I said before, I'm opposed to any form of coaching, including basing the discussion entirely on how well he would do in an RfA. Instead, maybe make it sound more like friendly advice from a more senior editor :) I certainly believe that if he focuses on contributing, as he has done so far (even if it's not article building), and not cheating the process, then someone will eventually take the initiative and nominate him, and he will pass if he's ready at that point. If not, maybe some other time—just like being an admin isn't a big deal, not being one isn't a big deal either.
In any case, I don't think there anything I can contribute to the discussion, but it was an interesting read. Thanks! Just make sure to tell him to include a link to his user, talk or both, in the signature. Cheers, Ynhockey ( Talk) 00:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Once again thank you for going out of your way to nominate me for RfA. I wanted to state this openly for others to see, not via email. I haven't been myself in recent days but I'm trying to get back to normal now. While I'm pretty sure I won't run for RfA ever again, certainly not within the next 9 months, I would still love to receive future advise from you and consider you a friend and someone to look up to here at Wikipedia. All the best. — Realist 2 05:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I saw your edit summary and agree... I would have no problem defending an early close, but decided that since he is an admin on two other projects, that we should at least get some input first. I was closing it at (0,0,0) which is OK in the case of a true noob, but for somebody with his experience, I wanted to let others chime in.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 23:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I wanted to come here, too. I noticed that you've changed your votes and participated strongly in the discussion. I think that's great. I feel that in this RfA we are truly discussing and deliberating over the decision. Many are posing thoughts and concerns; differing views of adminship; and the effects a promotion would have on the project as a whole. And, for the most part, the discussion appears to be extremely civil. All-in-all, I wanted to say, I think this is a productive RfA and that you're a strong part of that discussion. Regards, Lazulilasher ( talk) 17:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Would you be able to look at Sandwichmas and the edit history and confirm to me I was right in removing the nonsense and vandalism db tags? I'm pretty sure I'm right, but it never hurts to confirm it. Ironholds ( talk) 15:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Matthew gives a very detailed answer regarding possible problems to the Pump proposal on "editprotected" at User_talk:MBisanz#.22editprotected.22. (I'm watchlisting over there.) - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 03:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Ϣere
Spell
Checkers is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate the
Winter or
Summer Solstice,
Xmas,
Eid,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hannukah or even the
Saturnalia this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec08}} to your friends' talk pages.
Hi Balloonman, thanks for taking the trouble to give me that feedback. Ϣere Spell Checkers 23:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I was just wondering...
Speedy deletion, applied correctly, should only be used in cases where there is no reasonable chance that a legitimate article could be formed about a particular subject. The very nature of speedy deletion dictates that administrators are allowed to delete pages with no discussion: i.e., admins may, without defying policy, delete pages under the CSD regardless the page has been tagged for deletion. Tagging a page for speedy deletion is identical in function to reporting a vandal to Administrator Intervention Against Vandalism, namely, it is a way for non-administrators to alert admins about a task that needs to be performed. If anyone who presently tags pages for deletion were an admin, why would they still tag the page?
Obviously, it is your award, so you can do as you please, but I think that you will disqualify many administrators who are acting according to policy by including that as a requirement in your criteria. J.delanoy gabs adds 09:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Basiclly, you are correct that its less contentious.
comments:
Cheers, Amalthea 03:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I was very surprised and pleased to see this on my talk page today. I didn't think that anyone really paid attention to the articles that I speedily delete (except for the article creators, of course). It's good to know that someone is paying attention and is willing to take the time to make positive comments. Where can I find the rest of winners? I tried to follow the link you supplied ( Past winners) but I got an error message. ... discospinster talk 21:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've signed up for admincoaching, and I have a coach who is doing a pretty good job other than the fact that he's on and off here (and therefore difficult to communicate with), but I need an answer, and since you're probably one of the most experienced Wikipedians in RfA, I think you're the best to give me that answer. I'm I on the right track to adminship? Do you think I would make a good sysop? Do you think I should give RfA a go sooner or later? :) PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 21:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey. You indicated soon after the close of my RfA that you could possibly perform your massive editor review in a few days. I'd like to follow up on that if I may. If you are busy; that's OK, I could wait. NuclearWarfare contact me My work 04:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
You said: "On numerous occasions, I'll save an article in draft form, only to go back to writing the article. Before I have a chance to make another edit, my article will be tagged for deletion and then deleted." Don't you write drafts in your userspace? That usually offers plenty of protection against speedy deletion. Also, while you dislike CSD, I dislike Prod a lot. Often articles end up being deleted unilaterally by two editors just like CSD while they should have been discussed widely. PROD is supposed to be for non-controversial deletions, but in my experience, it's often misapplied. Perhaps you could do an essay on those too. - Mgm| (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that; never done it before :). It was fairly obvious he was going to fail/be closed and the 'crat rules allow for a non-crat closure in such cases, so I thought what the heck. I'll keep your advice around for future situations (although I can't picture them happening very regularly). Ironholds ( talk) 17:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking of asking another editor - yes, I have an offer - to nominate me for adminship early next year. I anticipate spending more time on things where it would be better to use the tools than to ask for administrative assistance.
However, I want a second, or should I say, third set of eyes to review me before I go through the crucible. I've seen your work in RFA and coaching and was wondering if you'd be that additional set of eyes.
If I have issues that would lead you to think I might accidentally misuse the tools or use them inappropriately in any big way, the time to fix them is a few months before using the tools not as you learn them. If you are willing to give me an "editor review with emphasis on things that would be troublesome in an administrator" I would appreciate it. Some pages of User:Davidwr/RFAs may be helpful.
Note - I'm not looking for coaching, just a review to identify weak spots. Knowing these will help me decide when or if to throw my hat in the ring. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 19:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Ecoleetage (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I wanted to ask if you'd mind if I used your CSD reviews to gauge views on some discussions currently going on at WT:CSD? It might get them a lot of traffic and attention, so just wanted to see if you'd mind before possibly getting a hundred eyeballs on them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I've listed List of Indian state and union territory capitals on WP:RM. Since it's a featured list, I didn't want to move it unilaterally. It might possibly need further discussion. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas to you kind Sir! Don't float away in the New Year! ...groans... Scarian Call me Pat! 15:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Might've missed this comment at the VP, so I thought I would ask it directly.
If we have this pool of trustworthy users who specifically want to help edit pages for other editors who are unable to; ie perform edit protected requests, why then is the backlog for Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests and Category:Requested edits frequently weeks and months long?
Further, in my own experience, users collect these minor userrights flags as trophies, if these users are so barely interested in actually doing edits to semi-protected pages that they don't do them at all, how is this new userright not just a trophy for them to collect? MBisanz talk 22:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to see if I could harnass your experience. At Wikiversity, we have a learning project that was started to help admin, but it never really took off. It can be found here. I was wondering if you could help out, give advice, possibly set up some various scenarios that people should explore and discuss, etc. I would mostly want you to continue your activities that you do now in regards to admining, but would offer you a larger environment and the rest to work it through. I know people don't seem to take admining as a serious thing, but there is a lot of technical and ethical aspects that deserve attention in order to produce an effective candidate. Just a thought. Ottava Rima ( talk) 03:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to wish everybody who comes to my pages a Merry Christmas.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me. I'd like to thank you again for nominating me for adminship, (not to mention supporting the continued "torture").
A Nobody
My talk is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
-- A Nobody My talk 02:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar | |
For commenting on something that ought in fact to be commented on. Law Lord ( talk) 10:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC) |
I'm Spartacus!,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)
All the Best.
«l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»
(talk)
When reviewing a candidate for RfA, how do you look at them? In other words, what is your process of reviewing the candidate? I've been looking for a better way to review candidates, and could use some ideas! Happy Holidays! aye matthew ✡ 21:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I really appreciate your kind message to reconcile with me. Although we were in disagreement on the RFA, I think you're a good person. Honestly, the situation mainly stemmed from my misunderstanding of the relocation of my comments to the talk page.l I was first shock at the move because I had thought only comments of some user like K...ber who now left the project would be treated like that. But well, I know I'm a black sheep on RFAs, but that's partially because I'm frustrated at lack of attention from administrators to my editing field (Asian subjects, especially China-Japan-Korea). Anyway, I also highly regard your searching for suitable admin candidates. As for the canvassing, it has no secret. Before and after doing it, I notified my intention to the talk page three times. Best wishes for the new year.-- Caspian blue 08:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, did your research alluded to here lead you to any conclusions about the mistaken target? They have always struck me as a promising candidate. Skomorokh 15:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
On your survey, you've left out the actual reasons for CSD-tagging articles: {{db|I've not heard of the topic}}, {{db|New account's first contribution}}, and {{db|I recently had an argument with the creator}}. Given the number of people who believe these are speedy criteria (" the subject of the article already has a website so doesn't need a Wikipedia page as well" is my current favorite), you and I are obviously committing the cardinal error of Being Against Consensus. – iridescent 02:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Balloonman, I present to you the barnstar of diligence in recognition of all your efforts to help assist and build Wikipedia, its community, and its processes. I may not always agree with you - hell, sometimes my opinion's the exact opposite of yours - but your constant dedication to improving the site in some way or another, whether it be at a noticeboard or RfA or elsewhere, is exemplary. You are a true asset to the project, and I honestly believe that if we had more like you, Wikipedia would be a better place. Master&Expert ( Talk) 11:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks MnE... I appreciate the recognition.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon Take the CSD Survey 21:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Truly a perk of having you as a coach :) I do have a few comments, one of which requires your action. Cheers. Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 08:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I saw your essay. Was wondering if you could give me your opinion on Special:Undelete/Inna_Korobkina and Special:Undelete/Leslie_Stefanson. I'm not getting satisfaction from the deleting admin and am wondering if I should take this to deletion review or just undelete them. Gimmetrow 07:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Balloonman, I just wanted to say thank you for your work in helping to improve CSD. I was surprised at first when I read your essay to notice one of my deletions pointed out as a mistake (deleting Mwuggle), so I made sure that I read the essay very closely. I've now learned some things I didn't know, and I am being much more careful now. I took the rest of the essay to heart too and am making a greater effort to explain to new users what mistakes they made that led their article to being deleted. You've already made a difference in my practices, and I suspect the essay has impacted a great many more CSDers. Thank you very much, and please, if you notice me making any other mistakes, let me know so that I can not do whatever I did again! Karanacs ( talk) 15:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey there, check your e-mail -- I've got an update on a used car that you asked about earlier. :) Ecoleetage ( talk) 18:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I've disgraced my kind RFA nominator yet, I'm glad to say! And thanks again. You have said you are interested in suggestions of possible admin candidates. User:Blueboar seems a helpful, strong policy-focused possibility to me, so I thought I would suggest him as a possibility to fill the current vacuum at RFA. Happy New Year in any case. -- Slp1 ( talk) 18:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Best To Reply At My Talk Page. Thanks.
Dear Balloonman,
Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.
Kind regards,
Majorly talk 21:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)