User talk:Balloonman/archive 15

SPARTACUS!!!

Way to take people off guard, man. bibliomaniac15 05:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hehe... it was something I've been debating for a while... I just couldn't think of a new name... but when I saw this at the EfD, I said, "I'm going to take it!" But I wanted to wait to ensure that I liked it and (in all honesty) to put some time between the RfB and the name change... The RfB had nothing to do with the name change, I was looking for something before that. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

o.O Tis all I have to say. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 06:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I knew you'd take it when I read that EFD discussion. I just knew it^^ Don't forget that "PoppaBalloon" does not fit anymore though. How about ^{Yes I am!} instead? ;-) SoWhy 09:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm Spartacus! :  Overthrow the republic!  - just a suggestion :) Pedro :  Chat  09:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Noooo!!! Don't join the Pedro-Sig-Cabal™!!!! SoWhy 10:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I reckon Balloonman should have been braver and changed his name to Sportacus .... Pedro :  Chat  13:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I REALLY liked it when it came up... part of the reason why I waited was because I had suggested to Iamawesome800 that he change his name... and since it was his EFD, I wanted to give him first shot... but I really liked the idea when I saw it. As for my sig, I know that PoppaBalloon doesn't work, but I'm going to leave it there for a few weeks, that way people get familiar with my new secret identity. I hate it how there are people who change their names, but you really have to think about who they used to be. It took me forever to remember Claude's old name. Leaving the Poppaballoon and the same color scheme for a few weeks should help others transition into my new name!---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 14:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Claude? Hopefully you mean Caulde, or I'm getting confused by all these renames. Useight (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why I'm keeping my colors and talkpage link the same for a while at least...---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 18:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

		The P. Diddy name change Award
		"I am not a king. I am something better. A free man."-Spartacus (from the 1960 Stanley Kubrick film) Interesting name change Balloonman :-D▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 06:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I like it... one of the all time classic movie scenes from on of the best movies of it's genre... and a leader who inspired.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 06:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that there are few things on the wiki that catches me by surprise and this is one of them, thought at first someone page moved you! lol, I agree with you it's an all time classic movie. :) ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 06:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Dang, this caught me off guard as well o.O (WHY?!?!?!?! I liked Baloonman more!) Inferno, Lord of Penguins 03:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Of all the people who have posted here, this is the ONE that surprises me the most... It's amazing who is watching you... and I just might not be thinking straight right now, but I don't remember ever dealing with ILoP!---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 03:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We all are watching you...(*every penguin in the world turns to face you*) and on a side note, I get an abbreviation now? Lol. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 03:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

ILop. you should know, I'm a military brat... the military couldn't function withou acronyms... ---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 04:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I thought you had found my secret identity - oh wait, I wasn't supposed to say that. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 04:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. This was an...interesting surprise to run across at WP:RfA... ;) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello Balloonman, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. -- Tinu Cherian - 09:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wanted to welcome you on your new username ! Welcome Balloonman ! -- Tinu Cherian - 09:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

yeah right, you just didn't recognize my secret identity! I *know* the truth. ;-0---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 14:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is going to take some getting used to. I just looked at my watchlist and saw "User talk:I'm Spartacus" and wondered how the heck it got on my watchlist...--Patton^t/c 16:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It was hard to miss that rename here when my watchlist exploded with 40 CSD survey subpages moved. :) --Amalthea 16:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the other 20+ pages...---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 17:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You're Spartacus?

I thought this guy was Spartacus. Or maybe it was this guy I forget. :) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

NO---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 17:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No I'M Spartacus! (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 18:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, he's Spartacus. No I'M Spartacus! (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm Spartacus and so is my wife (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, really, I'M Spartacus (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop that. This has gotten too silly.

Now, here is why being Spartacus is gonna be so much fun! I can now go on a blocking spree!!!---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 19:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You can try. No I'M Spartacus! (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, wow, wow hey!

Sure make a suggestion I should change User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion#Iamawesome800, and then you go and take it.:-)--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 19:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I gave ya 3 weeks to claim it, I told ya it was a great name! ;-)---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 20:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

PS it was also Eco's suggestion... he left you a number of other suggestions ;-) ---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 20:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You can have No I'M Spartacus! (talk · contribs) if you'd like? – iridescent 21:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That account's already got a specially-prepared welcome message and everything... Bencherlite^Talk 21:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And is suitably grateful.No I'M Spartacus! (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Username

...

??? Ceran^→//forge 21:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

For Spartacus!

Thankyou I'm delighted to accept. WereSpielChequers 09:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This rename is madness.

This. Is. SPARTAcus

Giggy (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a waste of time.--Patton^t/c 21:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That's us told.File:48px-Face-sad green.svg I'm Spartacus and so is my wife (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Where you Balloonman before? what does Spartucus mean, I never heard of it. oh, who is No Im Spartucus and all that, are they real users? David the Dogman (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Spartacus is one of the great heroes of history, the Hollywood film about him was lampooned in Life of Brian. I'm Spartacus too and so's my budgie 15:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

While it was lampooned, it was one of the great epic films to come out of the 1960's... at the end of the movie, when Spartacus' army is defeated, the Romans offer lienency to the other slaves if they sacrafice Spartacus. Before he has a chance to turn himself in, every person in the army stands up and declares, "I'm Spartacus" of "No, I'm Sparatacus". This scene has been repeated in numerous movies, books, comedy's, etc as it is a classic Hollywood moment. (Heck, Pepsi did a commercial using footage of this a few years ago.)---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 15:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

hey, i heard that Iridescent created No, I'm Spartucus!. doesn't enyone who creates more than one account get in trouble? thats what happened to my friend. his new account got blocked for no good reason. he used it because his friend got his password and he doesn't have and e-mail. sorry if i'm being nosy i was just wondering. David the Dogman (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No not everyone with more than one account gets into trouble, there are legit ways to use multiple accounts. WereSpielChequers 15:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It depends, some people have legitimate reasons for creating second accounts, some people create ghost accounts (EG a person who changes their name will often recreate their old account to prevent somebody from using their old name), and sometimes it's done as joke (which is borderline.) In this case, if Irredescent hadn't created the account, I probably would have to prevent people from mirroring my account. The big question becomes A) who is doing it, this is really one of the few places where an experienced user might get more lieniency and B) why are they doing it? Irridescent's did it for a quick joke, but I can pretty much guarantee that she won't be using it to edit articles, vote in RfA's, or anything else. While using it for a joke is probably borderline. But let's assume the worse, and that sock is inappropriate. People will look at her edits and go, "Wow, she made 5 joke edits using a questionable account" but has over 20K other edits, that means she less than 0.025% of her edits. Your friend, who doesn't have a track record, would be deemed as using a sock, and those same 5 edits, out of 100, would be 5% of her total edits.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 15:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

And also, Iridescent made a point of logging the creation of the account precisely to avoid this kind of silly question. Despite what some of the Defenders of the Wiki think, we don't have any policy against even undisclosed multiple accounts, let alone disclosed ones – the majority of regular editors have at least one alternative account to allow them to edit from public-access terminals without running the risk of potentially compromising their main account password; there are also a slew of "shell" accounts serving as redirects from common misspellings, potential impersonation targets, or names by which a user is known elsewhere (such as my Eva Destruction redirect). – iridescent 16:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

some insight please

he who was once a man of balloon's, perhaps you could review this thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wall.3F, a you've had some interaction with at least one of these folks. –xeno (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Gave what little I could... which isn't much---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 17:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WereSpielChequers 2 - not impressed

From your nomination... failed in large part because of an answer related to CSD! The question was somewhat a trick question (my bold from your nomination staement). I find that very disappointing as a comment BM / Spartacus. The fact it did not help the first RFA would imply my "trick question" was actually rather valid..... I'm not impressed by that slight on me to be honest. I won't oppose due to nominator actions as that's silly, but I'm not impressed the candidate accepted such a nomination comment. FWIW I have reworded the same questions and asked again. Pedro :  Chat  23:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it was somewhat a trick question, you were looking for a specific answer, he got to the right answer, albeit via circuitous route. BTW, I usually am behind ya, but in that case, I thought the fallout was a little too much. But that's my opinion, also, I'm critical of the question/fallout, but that doesn't mean that it has a bearing on the person who posed it. I can be critical of actions others take, without being critical of the person who made the action.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 03:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked at it a second time, just to be sure I had read it right, and yes, I stand behind my statement. WSC's rationale for rejecting the speedy deletion of the article would have been a valid reason, a claim to notability had been aserted, the fact that it wasn't the answer you were looking for, IMO, shouldn't have been held against him. The question had two correct answers. He gave one, but you were looking for the other. That's why I consider it somewhat a trick question. He gave a correct answer, but was dinged for not giving the correct one.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 03:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, you may have reviewed it but have you reviewed my oppose comments? You seem to think I opposed because he gave the wrong answer out of a couple of options. I opposed because he said he's create a redirect without research. There is no way I could have anticipated such a response, and hence there was no way this was a "trick" question. I don't do trick questions. Pedro :  Chat  07:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I know it wasn't intended as a trick question, but I think that is what it turned out to be. I read the RfA, not just your response, but others as well. I'm sorry if you took offense, it wasn't intended as such, but I do think he gave a valid answer but still got dinged for it. Also note, I did say "somewhat a trick question" not "was a trick question." The intention wasn't to trap him, but he did garner opposes for a valid rationale because he didn't give the expected answer. Again, my comment was in no way intended a slight against you, and as you took it that way, I do apologize.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 16:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Storm in a teacup - my apologies. Anyhow, I've supported round two but it could get a bit marginal ... :( Pedro :  Chat  16:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

NP, I'd rather have issues brought to my attention so that we can get it out of our systems... I'd rather be given the chance to explain... and apologize than have a grudge/bitter feelings develop over a period of time... yeah, I'm hoping it goes through. We shall see.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 17:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

OMG

I never saw this one coming. I have to take EFD more seriously. NO I'M Simon^KSK 23:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you add pictures?

How do you add pictures? Also I wanted to say I have and will make positive contributions like Page (servant) and Squire I hope to know anough information to contribute but I will do all I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David the Dogman (talk • contribs) 19:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Upload---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 20:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Uploading pictures you haven't taken yourself is a bit of a minefield David, so be sure to read the rules and be clear about what licensing applies. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nom

Sounds good! ;) Nja247 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

Noticed you just nominated Nja247 for admin and I was wondering if it's successful if you would be willing to be my admin coach.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 17:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm backing away from admin coaching for a while. Sorry. The advice I give, is to 1) work on articles, 2) develop a footprint in policy based areas 3) act like an admin... ---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 19:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

4) Don't want adminship too much. Trust me -it's not a reward. Pedro :  Chat  20:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Number 4 is actually the thing that kills many RfA's.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 21:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As can number 3 if done unwisely........ Pedro :  Chat  21:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Or number 2… – iridescent 21:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention number 1, if all you use is tools---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 21:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but couldn't "backing away" also kill an RFA? Useight (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Which is why we haven't told him about steps 5 6 or 7 yet ;-)---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 22:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If you (IAA800) want a serious answer from RFA's Resident Serial Opposer™, without even looking at your contributions what will kill get any RFA from you snowclosed at present is your username, this image on your userpage, User:Iamawesome800/Editnotice & User talk:Iamawesome800/Editnotice, and this userbox*. The first thing anyone reviewing an editor at RFA looks at is the candidate's userpage, and yours gives the impression of being very juvenile and immature, regardless of whether you actually are. – iridescent 22:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

*(harsh, but I always take {{User CVU4-en}} and {{User CVU5-en}} as prima facie evidence of an inappropriate attitude to Wikipedia; CVU5 – which you thankfully don't have – earns anyone using it my instant contempt, for the sheer crassness of equating "reverted some inappropriate edits" with "violent deaths of between 30,000 and 50,000 people"). – iridescent 22:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I'm surprised nobody has ever mentioned any of this before.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 01:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of us go to RfA because we share a vision of all human knowledge being freely available to everyone, and a few extra buttons would occasionally make that job easier. Others go to RfA because they've become bored with content creation, and are looking for a little light relief. Some even go because they view becoming an administrator as some kind of a promotion. So what's your motivation Iamawesome800? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Correction, no longer Iamawesome800, anyways to answer your question my motivation is because I just get annoyed looking at something like AIV and seeing 4 vandals reported and they stay there for 20 minutes and no admin blocks them, that's why I want to be an admin to ensure a quicker response to things like that.--Giants27 ^T 02:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right, the old "mop" argument. "I just want to clean up the floors, the only thing I'm even remotely qualified to do. I promise that I won't interfere with those editors actually trying to build this encyclopedia, because I've got no idea how to to do that myself, or how it feels to have crappy admins on my back." Unconvincing. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Just the first part also want it be able to delete articles that qualify for CSD (maybe not sure), and delete articles that have consensus at Afd. Also, to grant or deny unblock requests.--Giants27 Talk to Me 03:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing you just want to be superstar admin who everyone looks up too. That's a noble cause, though everyone seems to frown upon it. And we're currently short of them...--Patton^t/c 11:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Woooah, Malleus. Most of us don't "get on the backs of the people who actually build the encyclopedia", and even among those that do (not naming names) they're generally trying to help. Yes, admins do less article work; that's by virtue of the fact that doing additional tasks with no corresponding increase in available time means less time to spread between each task, but "does admin work"→"writes less articles"→"less useful" is as false a syllogism as "parents work"→"spend less time with the kids"→"juvenile delinquent". We have around 1000 active admins of whom perhaps a dozen are causing a problem at any given time, even in the eyes of the most hyper-critical attack sites; besides, the "throwing your weight around"/"abuse of position of respect" accusations are hardly unique to admins (as Mattisse will happily tell you at very...great...length). Yes, some people go to RFA for the wrong reasons – and I assume you've seen enough of my broadsides at RFA to know that I'm not exactly soft on those I think are there for the wrong reasons – but it's unfair to fall into the Kurt fallacy of assuming everyone there is on some kind of power trip. The "mop" analogy is badly dated, along with its ugly sister WP:NBD; you've seen enough of my talkpage (and Lara's, Balloonman's, Pedro's etc) to know that a more accurate analogy would be "a single rower at the oar of a galley trying to steer the ship off the rocks despite half the other rowers wanting to go in the opposite direction, and all the while the passengers and crew are either pretending the rocks don't exist or arguing about who should do the steering". However, "mop" is easier to remember and to spell than WP:ASRATOOAGTTSTSOTRDHTORWTGITODAATWTPACAEPTRDEOAAWSDTS, even if its meaning has twisted beyond recognition. (Wikipedia is a new technology, and words on new technologies have a habit of twisting beyond recognition. Imagine explaining the sentence "enable cookies on your browser or java may not function on this web page" to a time traveller from 1995.) – iridescent 21:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do someone's reasons for becoming an admin matter so long as they don't immediatly leave or abuse it?--Patton^t/c 21:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Because:

1. Admins are the de facto public face of the project, and get asked all kinds of weird questions; people without a strong background in both article and clean-and-tag work tend to flounder;
2. People who see Wikipedia as a game are more likely to abuse power (go to WP:RFDA for endless case studies);
3. People interested in the "levelling up" aspect tend to drift away fairly quickly once they realise just how uninteresting admin status is;
4. People who want – or potentially want – admin rights to use in content wars are far more likely to abuse them in other places too;
5. (in my view the most significant) People who want power for power's sake don't appreciate the fundamental driver of Wikipedia that makes it so successful when all the "better version" such as Google Knol have failed; the fact that it's managed to reconcile unashamed elitism with almost-absolute equality. "Anyone can edit" isn't just a slogan, it's a core principle, and I don't want anyone with an "I'm an admin, that makes me better than you" mentality anywhere near admin status;
6. While we may not have too many admins, we certainly don't have too few, and can afford to be choosy.

Will that do? – iridescent 21:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 1 and 6, I had never thought about that before, though we usually catch potential abusers easily enough at RFA, which is the general gist of the rest of the points...--Patton^t/c 21:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"We usually catch potential abusers easily enough at RFA"? We sure as hell don't. Go read WP:RFDA. Ponder on the fact that only one admin in the entire history of the project has stuck to a promised WP:AOR recall pledge when challenged. And ponder as to why ANI is the most edited page on the project. – iridescent 21:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

How can we know how many we catch if they don't pass and demonstrate to the world that they are abusers? :P--Patton^t/c 23:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem with RfA, and how many excellent candidates are demoralized and turned away because they don't meet our standards? Under the current format, we reject too many qualified people because we are trying to prevent the bad one's to get through. The problem is that once an admin, always an admin. Yes, there are ways to get the bit away from somebody, but as a general rule, I'd rather have my teeth pulled without anathesia than try to force the bit away from somebody---especially, if that person is popular. I'd much rather see a system where it was easier to get, loose, and re-get the bit than the current system. Getting the bit is such a bear because taking it away is nigh impossible. And once you take the bit away, it is extremely difficult for that person to get it back, even if they deserve it.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 15:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What he said. Admin status should be easy-come, easy-go; the current "job for life" setup means we have to treat every RFA as a Supreme Court candidacy given the potential for chaos when even one rogue candidate gets through. (If you think that "chaos" is hyperbole, just google "Poetlister".) – iridescent 16:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

To comment further to Patton's question look at Robdurbar (RFA), he deleted the main page and still passed 48-3-2 and for a more recent one Ecoleetage (RFA), he was at 119-28-3 when he "retired", not saying he would have deleted the main page (which for the record is now deletion protected) I'm just saying you never know whether or not there's a crazy person or a sane person behind the screen, so no there is no way of knowing what's going to happen after a person passes RFA.--Giants27 TC 20:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The main page is now deleted because somebody once deleted it on a dare thinking it was protected! They immediately undeleted it and reported themselves to ANI, but it was quite funny---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 20:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Damn, now I'll have to find another way to get into trouble. :( *joke* davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You have to look for ways to get into trouble? It just finds me. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Archiving WT:RFA

Thanks. I would've left it open for another day as the general principle applies to others who might be in a similar situation in the future. However, the moment is passed, so leave it closed.

I don't think I ever said I would never run for adminship, just that barring unexpected circumstances it's not in the near-term future. I've been here for years and plan on being here for many more years. If and when the off-wiki circumstances change, if I'm still interested, I'll probably have a chat with the next responsible nominator that comes along to make sure he didn't miss anything important, then accept his nomination. Things change though, who knows if I'll still be interested by then? Ideally, I'll improve my content skills and be spending so much time adding featured content and won't have time for the administrative side. I mean, adding good content is what we are here for, right? Policy pages, admin tools, user scripts, code improvements, discussion pages, and even Jimbo himself and the foundation are just here in support that goal. At least that's how I see it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: RfA

Thanks for taking a look at my contributions. In regards to nomination, I most definitely intend to have Lankiveil and Malinaccier be my primary noms, since they do (as you said) know me better than most. I might also ask one of WikiProject Medicine collegues if they would like to have an input, since they know my actual article work better than others. In regards to my past RfAs, that's odd, here are two direct links which definitely work for me, but otherwise I'm stumpted: request 1 and request 2. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Name change

You now have a link between yourself and the Detroit Lions. Well, at least in my mind. I thought of you when I created 1933 Portsmouth Spartans season a few days ago. Useight (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you hear about the recent child custody case in Detroit? Apparently some kid was being abused by his parents. The judge was going to turn him over ot his Aunt, but the child started crying that the aunt abused him too! So the judge asked him who he would like to live with, he said the Detroit Lions because they can't beat anybody!---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 23:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ha, that's a good one! That's why their 2009 schedule includes Jefferson High School, Boy Scout Troop 221, American Legion Veterans Club, and the Connecticut Institute for the Blind. In all seriousness though, I would like to see them break the record for most consecutive losses; they're at 17 straight while the record is 26. Nothing against the Lions themselves, I just like to see teams go on long streaks. Useight (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget my son's Pop Warner Flag Football team...---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 23:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't recent, it was from around Christmas, 1930. Unless you are thinking about the one from 1931, or 1932, or .... davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Request

Sorry to disturb but I thought to ask you since you've been active in highlighting this point in the past. Following the deletion of this page I was wondering if you could review some of the user's other deletions and see if it is an exception or part of a trend. Just if you're interested and have the time - I don't want to bring anything up with the user if it's an aberration. Alternatively if I've got this wrong - a not altogether uncommon scenario - any advice or feedback would be useful. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

His two edits to that page (which resulted in two speedy deletions) were the only edits the account has ever made. He hasn't edited any other page.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 16:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, if I was unclear I really meant more the way the page was deleted and the deleting admin. Not really an issue though - my initial post was probably fuelled more by tiredness (should have been sleeping at 2:44) than anything else. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at any of the admins other deletions, but the deletion of the page cited above looks ok to me... am I missing something?---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 20:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The page was originally deleted as a G1 candidate - the time I was referring to, I now see that after I left a message here the article was then recreated and deleted - this time as an A7 candidate (by the same admin). Probably not worth bringing up and I'm sorry to have taken up your time. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The text that was deleted as G1 was Is the most hot guy ever in the world. Means it has a cute face no one can resist. He is the bestfriend of Christina Thunder and he love her too.Marcela Ayredi is one of the biggest fools in the world for liking you know who. He loves her too. The best thing Juan Carlos can do its making people happy like the girl bisedes him in the clasrrom Donally. He is very happy all days! and the text that was deleted as A7 was He was bor on 1945 in the city of Dubai. His grandma, Marcela Ayerdi was the one who put him on the way to be an arquitect. By the end of 19950, his grandma died by diases and he suffered for a long time. His best friend Christina Thunder was one his trudly friend, with her, he made up a complete city and they just went happy. By the end of 2000 Juan Carlos suffered a heart attak.. Both were tagged correctly; I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. – iridescent 21:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Again shouldn't have brought it up - really nothing to bring up - and I apologise for disturbing you. Guest9999 (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wadester16

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wadester16 and his knowledge of policy: I had some of the same issues. Although it is sparse in discussions, a look at his edit history will show some knowledge of policy, and a clear indication that he's willing to fill in gaps in his knowledge before using the tools. I don't expect to see him in the WP:Village stocks when he gets the bit. Look at his use of cleanup templates and the like. Personally, I think he would've been a nearly-unanimous or unanimous shoe-in if he'd read through a few RFAs, realized what people are looking for, and spent 3 months working those things into his normal editing routine. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Then it wouldn't have been his normal pattern of editing, would it. Just an act put on to slip through RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

But don't we normally act when we are trying to get things accomplished. When you go for a job interview, you don't wear what you normally wear to work. When you go to your girlfriends parents house for the first time, you are on your best manners. When you are meeting with a college recruiter, you put on a happy face. I don't look at doing these edits as "an act... to slip through RfA" but rather as getting some experience/exposure to different areas. (Which is why when I coach, I do it for a long term, 1 month coaching cannot be anything more than a quick "act" but 3 months lets the candidate get real exposure to different areas.) But we all put on acts, somebody with as much literary expertise as you Malleus can probably cite numerous examples of how we ALWAYS have a different mask on depending on the circumstances.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 16:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If you get the job that you put the act on to get, for instance, you will be put on a probationary period. And if your real standard of dress is so different from what you demonstrated at the interview, or what is expected, then you will be out the door pretty quickly. What's the equivalent safeguard at RfA? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you on the fact that we should have an easier mechanism to get rid of bad admins (and an easier method to become an admin), but the reality of the situation is that we do put on masks. And it is wise to get experience elsewhere. I mean in every venture that we take that is of any measure, we do investigate it, learn the norms, and try to gain experience before we engage in said measure. Only here on Wikipedia, is admitting to preparation considered a bad thing.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 16:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That's at least partly because it's a convenient fiction that the Xfd areas or AN are in some way good training for anything, other than for testing your resistance to terminal boredom. What training is available in the use of blocks? Or handling deleted material? Or moving over redirects? What makes a deletion discussion so vitally important? Misuse of the block button is about the only administrative action whose effects can't be reversed, but it's handed out with absolutely no training its use whatsoever. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm Spartacus already addressed some of the reasons to "act." Others include:

• Forced practice - if you try something and find you don't like it, maybe you'll rethink your request before making it.
• Becoming what you do: if you start to do something habitually, it changes your character. If you go from being an editor who doesn't habitually hang around admin-ish areas to one who does it "just for show" for a "predefined period of time" one of two things will happen: You'll think it's a waste of time or hate it, and probably decide adminship isn't for you, or you'll weave it into your normal editing and you'll continue doing it whether or not you become an admin, at least until through the course of normal life you again change what you focus on.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced. We all know the real reason for hanging around these so-called adminish areas. To pass RfA. Why not just admit it? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If that were the case, admins would abandon them in droves. Oh wait. You are correct, that is probably one of the motivations for most people. But it's not the only one. When I do PROD-patrol, it's for the purposes of PROD-patrol. I've been doing it long enough that I don't have anything more to prove to anyone by hanging around there. When I hang around AFD, it's usually but not always because I care about keeping the article or want to get rid of the article. When I hang around ANI it's frequntly but not always to see if there is anything that can be solved non-administratively. Sometimes, it's to get some practice. Sometimes, and yes I'm admitting this, it's so I'll "look good" to someone now or in the future. But that's far from most of the time. Besides, sometimes I drop the ball and "look bad" when it's clear I don't know a particular policy detail, but that's life and a learning experience. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Admins do abandon them in droves. I have not infrequently seen Pedro bemoaning the fact the he's all alone at CSD again, for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That's as much an artifact of his generally being active at the unusual time of 0700-1300 UTC as anything else, though. (Clearing out CSD isn't very hard or time consuming; it's just a repetitive click→delete-or-revert-as-appropriate→back→repeat cycle) – iridescent 17:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"Look at his use of cleanup templates and the like." That would nearly make me instant oppose a candidate. The only useful cleanup templates IMO are {{fact}} and those otehr inline ones like it. The huge messages at the top don't normally attract attention and are unsightly. If you must give a detailed analysis of the article do it on the talk page, you could even place the cat there.--Patton^t/c 18:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I entirely agree. Those unsightly banners are just one small step away from vandalism as far as I'm concerned. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

For some of them, the garish intrusiveness is quite deliberate; {{POV}}, {{Unreferenced}} or {{Disputed}}, for instance, are in glaring primary colours precisely to act as a "Warning! Don't trust this article!" marker. The great template-standardisation drive of 2007 led to a lot of less significant templates being redesigned to the same format. – iridescent 17:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

POV/Disputed are the ones that I support... but I could see merging them into one. Most of the banners could be just as effective as a Category or event a banner at the bottom of the article. They don't have to be at the top... but I do support the ones that say, "Don't trust this article."---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 17:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Balloonman?

Hi, Spartacus. Are you a sock of Balloonman? I ask because of a number of similarities. No offence intended. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps my signature might give it away ;-) ---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 08:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. ;-) Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

In other words, not quite a sock... was it the page or the manner of speech... or the use of "poppaballoon" in the sig that made you suspect? I've tried to make it obvious about the name change, so that people know who I am---I'm not trying to be stealthy in making it.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 10:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

First the signature (especially "Poppaballoon"), Balloonman's mysterious disappearance from RfA with coincident arrival of Spartacus, and the userpage format with links to Balloonman's CSD review pages. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I left the Poppaballoon in there so that people would know it was me, but several people still didn't recognize the obvious (you aren't the only one to ask), so I decided to change it to make it even more obvious. I'll probably leave it that way for another week so that I'm Spartacus! becomes synonymous with Balloonman. Then I'll change it.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 15:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Signature suggestion

I still think you should've gone with the rebellious-slave motif with your new sig, maybe Pokeacenturion or Popnonsense or something. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What's Latin for Free the slaves? WereSpielChequers 20:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, since Balloo, I mean Sparticus is an admin, I guess replaying the French Revolution is out of the question. "Off with their heads!" davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Yokota High School JROTC Honor Guard.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Yokota High School JROTC Honor Guard.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

RfA

Hi. i saw that you responded at Iridescent's page about my RfA query. As Malleus Fatuorum has said he wouldn't oppose, i think there is not much more i can prepare (I don't think i've done anything especially shameful!) . But i would prefer to have someone who knows the requirments to nominate me :-). Would you consider this, after seeing my contributions? Not immediately, but in a few weeks (so i can get experience in anything you consider lacking?)

Or am i supposed to put my name somewhere as a 'hopeful"? Almost all my non-mainspace work comes from me following article developments and talk disputes, so i've never paid much attention to RfAs.Yobmod (talk) 10:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at you this weekend, but I have suddenly become EXTREMELY busy in RL. Several of the things I've been working on for a few months have suddenly become a reality at the same time.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 03:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool - i wont be making any attempt until March (if at all!). I like the auspices of doing it exactly a year after i signed up.Yobmod (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm no judge at RfA, as evidenced by the fact that once believed I stood a chance there, so don't take my opinion too seriously. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, i'm hoping my tendency to couch criticism in disingenuous questioning will make the difference :-).Yobmod (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

WP100

Dear Spartacus, just a short note to thankyou for your nomination and support in the last week. Its been very strange seeing all these votes piling in, both from people I have dealt with and have huge respect for and from people I didn't think I'd met. Your nomination made a huge difference to that and I promise never to do anything to make you regret it. WereSpielChequers 23:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

13 minutes to go

Notice they held Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WereSpielChequers 2 open for 13 more minutes so he could reach WP:100. Where's the honor in that? Well, he'll have the rest of his mop-wielding wiki-career to demonstrate honor. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

13 minutes aint much time... I've seen RFA's opened/closed up to 2 hours in either direction.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 23:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but in how many of them did the closing time make a difference either in the outcome or in a milestone? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

First step in research completed

You gave me some good ideas before, maybe you can suggest what to do next.

Who is effected when an article is deleted

After a couple of months of compiling data, I finally finished the first section of my research: User:Ikip/AfD on average day, thanks to a dozen admins who gave me a copy of the deleted material. I found what many article squadron members already know, that our current deletion policy overwhelmingly effect new users:

1. 31 out of 98 articles, nearly one third, which were put up for deletion were created by editors whose very first contributions was the new article.
2. 66 out of 98 articles, 67%, which were put up for deletion were created by editors who had 100 contributions or less when they created the article.
3. 81 out of 98 articles, 82.6%, which were put up for deletion were created by editors who had 1000 contributions or less when they created the article.

Any ideas how I can figure out if there is a definite link in the drop in editing since October 2007 to the treatment of new users? (travb) (inclusionist) Ikip (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is extremely overzealous use of A7 and G1. Anything that the reviewer hasn't heard of seems to be nominated, even albums. Afd more please...--Patton^t/c 17:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Established users know our policies regarding verifiability and hence are unlikely to create speedy-deletion candidates. There's really nothing to see here. – iridescent 19:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was talking to I'm Spartacus!, I find Iridescent comments particularly unhelpful and not useful. Ikip (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean.</joke> Iridescent is right though, however irritating that may be. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Iridescent is correct, but the thing that I would be focusing on, isn't the newbies who get things deleted, but rather the veterans who have articles deleted. If Malleus were to write an article, that I thought was pure drivel and fit the criteria for A7, I would not speedy delete it... especially if it were deleted within an hour of creation. I might mention it to him, but he is a veteran content builder, and if I were a betting man, I would place money on the fact that Malleus forgot to write the article in his user space, and saved a draft in the article space. Also, I do know that veteran writers will write articles that are marginal and may be deleted. I have one more than one article that could be sent to afd, and at least one that if it were nominated, I probably couldn't defend. (Not to say that I think it isn't notable or worthy of keeping, but rather, I know that the RS and V might not be enough to keep it.)---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 18:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the article Ikariam which was speedied under A7, sent to DR, AfDed and eventaully kept and expanded immensely.--Patton^t/c 19:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

RfA

That wasn't so bad this time around. Thanks for the guidance, support and the nom! Nja247 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

RFA thankspam

Thank you for your enthusiastic !vote at my RFA, even though you did refer to me several times as a male despite the nom statement. Somno is quite a masculine-sounding username, but even if I had a feminine-sounding username and a pink signature, I'd probably still get called "he", so what's the point? ;) In relation to you wanting to nominate me (and the mention of me in the first sentence of someone else's RFA!), I thought there would be no further review from you because you were reducing your RFA participation, and the CSD review helped give me the confidence to run (along with Hesperian saying I'd make a good admin). I was much more worried about RFA than I needed to be, but I'm still a little shocked that it went so well and that anyone could refer to me as a "shoe-in". Thanks again for your review as it really helped my confidence, and thanks for your kind comments. Regards, Somno (talk) 05:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That has to be one of the best thankspam's I've ever received. I'm glad I gave you confidence to run, I expect good things out of you... as for my not nominating you, that's my fault... I should have told you I was considering it or done it myself... you had no way to know that I was impressed enough with your CSD work that I was going ot look at the rest of the picture.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 18:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to stop by

Hello, Balloo.. err... Spartacus. Long time, no see. I just wanted to drop by to see how you were doing. I see you finally decided on a new name change. Very nice name. Well, I hope everything is good with you. — RyanCross (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I kind of started thinking WAY back when you pointed out all of the username changes that occured... I thought about it but couldn't think of anything I'd rather have. Then the name was used jokingly at an EFD, and I loved it!---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 07:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You can always get a chuckle or two from EFD. Hope to see you around. Though, I won't be as active as I used to be... and I just realized my one-year-on-Wikipedia day is in two days. :-) — RyanCross (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Query

Whilst I'm really busy for the next two weeks, I did manage to try out the goods this morning in an area I'm familiar with (usernames). Anyhow, when a user is blocked indef for username policy and their user page has spam on it, was it right to delete it with the reasoning I gave, or was there better reasoning/way to do it? Also the image on their user page appears to be their logo, etc -- thus should anything be done about that or just let it orphan and it'll eventually get deleted? It wasn't an image that was obscene or anything so I just let it go for now. Thanks for guidance :) Nja²⁴⁷ 09:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The account does exist, and while it may have been indef blocked, there is always a chance/slim one that it might be unblocked, thus I would have preferred G11 Blatant Advertising. As the reason with a note that the user was also blocked. That being said, if I saw your deletion of this page, I wouldn't quibble over the reasoning. As for the image, images are an area where I am woefully uneducated. I generally take my image questions to user:Giggy as he is a crat on the Commons. I would probably PROD the image. That being said, I just looked at the CSD categories and can see several that it could probably fit under. Namely F9 or F7, while he claims it as his own, you are correct it is a corporate logo, thus unlikely to be under an individuals pervue to grant permission. ---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 14:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You confirmed what I was thinking. I just want to be sure that I'm on the right track before I really get in there (after my assessments) Thanks! Nja²⁴⁷ 19:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the image on Commons, as it's out of our project scope. I'll gladly help with image related issues/questions. Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  20:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick questions about CSD

Hi, I just wanted to check that I'm doing the right thing when it comes to CSD, and you seem to be the go-to person for such matters! I have begun to help out at CAT:CSD by removing articles that do not meet the criteria, and tag them for PROD/AfD/clean them up as appropriate. My real query is: was I right to decline speedies such as this A7, this A7, and this G11? There are a few more examples in my contribs if you want to have a poke around. I think that generally I have a good grasp of the CSD criteria, but want to make sure that I'm not misinterpreting. Thanks in advance, Richard⁰⁶¹² 16:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

1. The first one I deleted. The claim to notability was that he was the "tallest librarian in the world." That isn't a real claim to significance/importance nor is the fact that he cried at specific historical moments. The it included the line, Let's see how long it takes for his students to notice this wiki has been edited. Wikipedia works really well for some things, but not always. This is some HS teacher/librarian trying to make a point. He thinks that his article will go undetected for days/weeks/months before anybody notices it and thus prove to his students that WP is unreliable. I actually blocked him based upon the user name and the fact that it was created merely to make a point.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 18:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
2. The second one was deleted by somebody else. A7 was inappropriate as A7 deals with "real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content." The article was a play, not a real person/organization/web content. But it was properly deleted per A1: Not enough context to identify article's subject. Additionally, the fact that the article consisted solely as "rumored" cast members there could be potential BLP issues as well. WP is not a crystal ball and including the name of rumored cast members without citations does not make an article make. As we don't know the nature of the play, who knows if this is an attack page? I mean, what if the play is some high school kids joke casting people as a group of "fags" (notice, I am specifically not using the word homosexual or gay there to convey why this could be a BLP issue.) But for all we know this could be some kids attempt to embarrass people by saying that they are "rumored" to be part of the cast of this perverse show.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 18:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
3. The final one is the Full Tilt Online Poke Series. This is a hard one. I would personally removed the DB and send it to AFD or PROD it, but I say that because I am an active member of wp:poker (take a look at the articles created and my featured content stars.) I know that there is more the FTOPS than is mentioned there. I do not believe G11 is accurate because it is not blatant advertising/spam. It doesn't tell people where/when the event is, or how to get involved. Instead it cites the events winners. The different online poker cites are trying to create an online version of the World Series of Poker, and the FTOPS is Full Tilt's entry into that effort. The article should be deleted, but it doesn't fit any of the CSD criteria.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 18:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info/analysis, I hope it'll help me to improve my knowledge of speedy deletion. Richard⁰⁶¹² 18:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

A little bit of boldness

Hope you don't mind SoWhy 17:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This is WP, if I minded, I wouldn't be here.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 15:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Balloonman. You have new messages at Backslash Forwardslash's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

My old RFA draft

It's probably time to move Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Davidwr to your user page for safekeeping and deleting the redirect. Keep it around for when the time comes, the information will still be around. Depending on now my life goes, we are probably talking sometime between 3Q09 and 3Q10 unless something unexpected happens that allows me to move it up or pushes it back further. I've got some stuff that may be put on my plate off-Wiki later this year and early next that is totally unrelated to anything about this RFA, which is why I may push it out past mid-2010. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

E-Mail

Hi Spartacus, I've sent you an e-mail. :) Sam ^Blab 22:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Request

I was wondering if you would be willing to coach for becomming an administrator. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

sorry, I need to put myself in the inactive admin coaching area, I'm backing away from coaching for a while... but I will try to take a quick review of you this weekend and give you some insight/thoughts... and I'm sure that malleus will be by with some tough questions for you. (He likes to badger query people who ask for coaching.)

Thanks a lot. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for London Clubs International

On February 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article London Clubs International, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Just noticed your sig - had no idea you were Balloonman. --Dweller (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You've changed your name, but for me you'll always remain B-man. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope that's a good thing ;-)---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 16:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

ROFLMAO!!! I kept the "PoppaBalloon" as part of my sig for a week, but some people missed it. So I decided to be even more obvious. I changed my name because I wanted a change, not because I was trying to obfuscate who I was, so I wanted to be sure that people associate my new and my old name together. When I realized that the "poppaballon" wasn't a strong enough link to my old account, I decided to spell it out.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 16:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your nice response. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I just realized you insulted me!!! you called ma a "B Minus man"---I'll have you know that my wife considers me to be an "A plus man!" ;P---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 18:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to imply anything, but your wife is hardly an unbiased commenter SoWhy 18:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

She may be biased, but in my impeccable opinion, she has discerning tastes!---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 18:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like OR to me... –xeno (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

In that case, more research is always needed!---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 16:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

name change

Are you sure about this? Remember what happened to your namesake. ;) Dlohcierekim 20:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

yeah, but how many people did he take down with him!---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 07:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Just please don't take down most of these people or there could be problems. At least, don't take them down at the same time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

By "problems" he means User:Crassus might be angry--Patton^t/c 16:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hail Spartacus! I'm just a humble slave girl here but I'd like to know what time the revolution starts.    SIS  18:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Your nomination

Your nominee, Amalthea, was in an edit war on February 3rd. They used twinkle to revert multiple edits to relink dates. They claimed on the user's talk page that WP:DATE requires date linking. It does not. Delinking dates is perfectly common and acceptable, and cannot be declared vandalism. As you can see from this and this history, along with the other edits from this user on Feb 3rd is inappropriate. Twinkle is not to be used to engage in POV pushing and edit warring, even if the other user is an IP.

I only bring this up because I am deeply concerned about this, and I believe that you spent time with this user. I want to make sure that you do not overlook such an obvious problem in the future, especially when this user was warned for edit warring and used roll backs during that dispute. Admin are supported to abide by consensus, to note bite people, and to determine what is truly vandalism. I have a lot of respect for you, but I found this almost instantaneously and I am finding many more problems in this user's contribs. Please try to make sure that people who come to you to be nommed know that such things are inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ottava,

Thanks for bringing yoru concerns to my attention. I will be honest with you, I did my review before the 3rd. (I wrote the nom on the 5th, but it was over the weekend that I did my final review) so if something happened after the weekend, it might not have seen it. That being said, and looking at the stuff you provided above, I don't see the concern. First, linking/delinking dates is not IMO POV pushing, unless you are doing so to be pointy. It is a stylistic change, but one that most people do not care about, I suspect that Amalthea doesn't really care one way or another, but is rather making a change based upon what he thought was consensus. Unfortunately, he didn't realize that consensus recently changed in this regard in December 2008. Thus, he was reverting an action incorrectly, but IMO it is the type that was done in good faith and the change in the MOS should be brought to his attention. Second, your claims of violating 3RR, are completely unfounded, let alone the allegation of 18RR. As best I can determine you are looking at the edit history between him and an IP wherein he made 2 edits per page on several pages. I'm guessing 9 pages as 9X2 = 18? If this is the case, then this is NOT a 3RR violation. Per the policy, The rule applies per page; reverts spread across multiple pages so that an editor does not revert a single page more than three times do not violate the rule. That stipulation is in there to prevent people from getting banned from making one series of edits in good faith and then being blocked without any real warning. Amalthea from the links you provided made 2 changes to both of those pages on Feb 3, 2 edits per page is NOT a 3RR violation. Even if it were, 3RR violations without warnings are generally regarded with less weight. The Assumption of Good Faith is that somebody may not realize what they have gotten into, and thus before blocking a person, there is the expectation that the party is reminded/warned that they are or have broken 3RR. But that is a moot point, because in this case, 3RR was not violated.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 18:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Dates and delinking are not -vandalism-. Twinkle would allow a revert of -good faith- but only one at a time. Doing it twice would be revert warring. Doing it across multiple pages (9 pages), is edit warring. 3RR is not the definition of Edit warring, nor is 3RR anything but a measure on a specific page. Good faith can apply to the -first- revert. However, good faith can -never- apply to a second revert, a third, a fourth, or beyond. Admin should not revert more than once, nor should they engage in reverts across multiple pages in an area that is not vandalism. The importance right now is abuse of Twinkle. His action in regards to Rollback -should- have gotten Rollbacking removed and would except through lack of people noticing. This is the second automated action that he has indulged in using in order to promote lack of pursuing -consensus-. Admin are supposed to be focused on consensus, setting a good example, discussing with people -why- there is a problem instead of just reverting, going to talk pages, etc. Instead, there was a false claim to WP:DATE, which even states that reverting over date formatting is unacceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit war "For instance, edit warring could take the form of 4+ reverts on a page in a day, or three, or one per day for a protracted period of time, or one per page across many pages, or simply a pattern of isolated blind reverts as a first resort against disagreeable edits." - This is a blatant policy. Balloonman, I expect you to correct your claims that he did not violate policy or you have lost all respect you have from me as someone who understands adminship. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I'd be pretty surprised if anyone cared about having your respect. Tan | 39 19:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, when they support blatant edit warriors for adminship and then can't even get the basic definition of edit warring correct. But yeah, way to really let down wikipedia. Of course -you- would be around to cheer on the abuse. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There is also a not-universally known temporary injunction against "mass" date linking or unlinking. I would hardly call 18 edits massive, but some people may disagree. I got called on the carpet recently because I edited a template which had the effect of being a massive date-delinking. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a small correction, the reverts had nothing to do with date linking or delinking, and I am and was aware of the (disputed) change in MOS, the current RFAR case and the injunction. The anonymous editor unilaterally changed both linked and unlinked dates to MM/DD/YYYY style on a number of pages, which is against consensus and would need preliminary discussion at the appropriate guideline page. This recommendation is just what I left at the editor's talk page. I have no POV regarding linked or delinked dates. --Amalthea 19:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any of you see the point Ottava is making here. It doesn't really mater what the ip did, it wasn't vandalism, and thus shouldn't have been rollbacked (Yes I know it was TW rollback but that's still rollback), it should have been undone. In future use undo please Amalthea, unless you use the "[Rollback|Good faith]" feature, which isn't for vandalism.--Patton^t/c 19:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And also follow standard procedures by directing the individual to consensus, by being welcoming, not biting, and don't treat the individual like a vandal. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

He did leave a note on the ip's talk page. I think we can leave this discussion here.--Patton^t/c 19:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I really enjoy how Ottava conveniently ignores the fact that the IP made a unilateral change, and that seems to be okay, but when Amalthea changed it back, that becomes OMG ROLLBACK ABUSE!!!one!1 J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ever heard of be bold or the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle? You're supposed to do things unamimously and if someone reverts you then discuss. Of course the ip didn't do this because he's new and clueless.--Patton^t/c 19:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Lets see - an IP sees a date formatting that is different than what they are used to. They think that it is a mistake. They correct it. Some people throw out vague comments and revert on a mass scale and then basically use vague links which don't reinforce what they say to attack what the user did. In that situation the IP, who is inexperienced, is being attacked for very little reason on a mass scale. They disappear. Amalthea, who has a history of edit warring while using tools, is preparing for adminship. IP is gone. Amalthea is here to stay. Amalthea should have known better. Balloonman should have known better. Tan above should know better. You, J.delanoy, should know better. But you welcome Amalthea with open arms. Who cares about another admin who edit wars and treats new people like crap! We are a brotherhood and we forgive each other! Yes, what an image to show that ikipedia:Edit war, one of our most important policies, is a fraud. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

So what you are saying is, IPs can get away with stuff that users with accounts cannot? wtf? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course. They're only new after all. This discussion is going nowhere. Amalthea, remember not to rollbck non-vandalism. Everyone else, stop fighting and move on. Please don't post another comment below this.--Patton^t/c 20:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

When the IP runs for admin then I will oppose his nomination with every breath I have left in me and make sure to chastise his nominator for not seeing the blatant edit warring. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I was blatantly assuming bad faith here, and I would like to publicly apologize to Ottava. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see this as an Edit War. I see this as two series of edits-not an edit war. Yes, an edit war can stem from less than that, but generally, in order for one or two individual edits to be considered an edit war, there is a history of a record with the person making those edits. EG a known user, UserX, is known for pushing a particular fringe theory about UFO's. He's been warned about it repeatedly. He hears something on the Art Bell show that gets him exited and goes and edits a page where he has a history stating that UFO's rigged the 2008 election. Because of his history, and his reputation, his edit might be deemed part of a larger process. Another user is making edits to a talk page, but doesn't like the direction the discussion is going, so he makes a single edit to a page to make a point. Those are about the only ways that you will ever see a single edit being called an "edit war." Similarly, a person who goes around 10 pages making what he knows to be a controversial statement, knowing that somebody else disagrees with him, that person is engaged in an edit war. A person who is legitimately making what he thinks are legitimate improvements to WP, and hasn't been contacted/warned or anything, is not engaged in an edit war. As far as I am concerned, Amalthea made two series of 9 edits, in good faith, attempting to preserve Wikipedia. There was no malice there. There was no intention to edit war. There was no idea that his edits might be controversial. There was nobody saying, "you are wrong" or issuing warnings. Before I get upset with somebody for "edit warring" it needs to be so flagarant that the person had to know what they were doing was wrong or somebody needed to say, "Hey, what you are doing is wrong." In this case, neither of those events happened. Making two series of 9 edits, of what he perceives to be an improper edit, is not the same as making 18RR (as you claimed). Nor did anybody, including the IP, say, "You are wrong and here's why." If you can show me other cases where he has done the same thing with dates and had somebody "warn him" or even point out his mistakes, I might be willing to reconsider. But I do not consider two cycles of edits an edit war.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 20:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Balloonman, it is clear that "one per page across many page" is an edit war regardless if it warrants a block or not for edit warring. It is also clear that "at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism." Notice that. No matter how you try to justify it about content, these cannot be declared vandalism, so reverting it constantly is edit warring. If they are two series of 9 edits, each series is its own edit warring according to the definition. Sure, you can declare WP:IAR, but saying they are not edit warring is to blatantly dismiss everything that edit warring has ever been known as and does a great disservice to Wikipedia. The fact that -you- were training him and did not pick up on his actions let alone thing that it is not a problem is troubling. Not only do you taint this nominee with what you are saying, but all of your previous nominees if you continue to persist to say that the very letter of edit warring can't possibly be true in such an obvious situation because you refuse to accept that your nominee could have a serious problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

it is clear that "one per page across many page" is an edit war--- No it is not clear. Person A can be making a good faith edit, that s/he thinks is necessary accross a number of pages. Another editor, sees the change, and goes "No, that's not correct" and makes undo's said edit accross numerous pages as well. As for the rest of your diatribe, I'm going to choose to ignore it...---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 22:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Bold, revert, discuss. Not, bold, revert, revert, revert, claim that there is a rule that would mean that you will be blocked even though edit warring strictly says that POV, no matter how bad, is not vandalism. You might be able to rationalize the first set. The second set is right off inappropriate. Why do you keep trying to act like it would be appropriate? You can chose to ignore it all you want, but next time you nom someone I will just link back to here to show that you are a really poor judge of character and that a close analysis of the user is necessary because -you- fail to do your job as an admin coach and nominee. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And so far, for all of your wailing and gnashing of teeth, you've convinced exactly how many people you are right and the correct judge on issues relating to edit warring???---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 23:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, in IRC from those who told me directly, at least 12. For the rest, who knows. However, its hard to tell who didn't have respect for you before this moment. I know that you lost mine, but its hard to tell whose else's you just lost with your defending of blatant edit warring and your lack of initial differentiating between edit warring and 3RR. Its really bad when a person who trains admins makes such a blatant mistake and shows lack of knowledge over a core policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And for your information, I do a lot of research and talk to a lot of people before I make judgment calls on edit warring and the rest. You had maybe 2 people who defended what you thought, but far more felt that it was obvious. One only defended you because they thought the IP should be equally punished. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem... my opinion on you has dropped significantly. We look at the same person and the same evidence and you choose to be the lone voice crying out that based upon one series of edits, that he is an POV pusher and edit warrior. I disagree. Most of the people who have spoken up disagree with you. So you have now resorted to insults and personal attacks. Guess what, I knew about your checkered past here on WP, but I didn't care. Now I am starting to understand why you have the reputation that you do. You see it one way and anybody who disagrees with you is therefore an idiot. Good grief, give it a break, regardless of how many times you say it, others are willing to assume good faith. Those mystery people you cite, haven't backed you, but over 80 people have supported Amalthea.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 15:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Lone voice? Just looking at this thread proves that you are far from accurate on that one. You proved that you didn't know what "edit warring" meant earlier. Now you are proving that you are incapable of looking at a discussion before responding. You can insult me all you want, but these show that you have fallen greatly. If you want to talk about reputation, you should have seen some of the nasty things people have stated about you to me. I'm not an admin. I'm not someone who wanted to be a crat. After this one, you sure blew any second chance you had at that one. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

While I barely read the above nonsense, I do get a warm feeling that Wikipedia is fortunate you are not an administrator. Tan | 39 01:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If being an administrator means that you turn a blind eye to the obvious flaws and corruption, then I think Wikipedia is fortunate that those like me refuse to ever degrade themselves in such a way. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree! Now if we could just get you to stop degrading yourself in multiple other ways, we'd be all set. Tan | 39 05:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I want to apologize to you. Some of my comments yesterday (UTC time) were cruel and should not be stated regardless of the validity. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sort of a backhanded apology, isn't it? "I was right, but I shouldn't have said it". Tan | 39 00:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it is basically this - it doesn't matter if I think that the information is correct or not. I should not use the information to be cruel to another. Facts are facts. To use them in a cruel manner is never appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

And that is a KEY distinction. I see your evidence/facts, but I reach a different conclusion. One thing that I learned when I was studying for the ministry (a field I didn't go into, but spent several years studying for) is that equally intelligent people can look at the same facts and disagree on their meaning. The problem with many people when discussing religion/politics is that they think their interpretation of the facts is the only interpretation. And I found that to be prevelent in your interpretations above. You had your stance and you refused to even acknowledge that somebody else might differ with it, and if they differed they were unfit and all sorts of other vindictives. I'm willing to discuss issues, but I do not take kindly to threats and insults.

That being said, I do appreciate your apology, and to the degree that I responded in kind I too apologize.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 02:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Problematic editor - how to handle?

Hi, I'm Spartacus…er…You're Spartacus…er… Damn. Hi there. You might remember me from such movies as Hat → → → → Ring (…and Here Comes the Metric System! ;-))

Say, how might Wdl1961 (talk · contribs) best be guided towards coöperative participation? There've been one or two good additions, but mostly bizarre, random and/or abstruse entries on various talk pages, moving or copying entire blocks of text from one talk page to another, and repeated removals of valid templates (e.g. 1, 2). I've put appropriate and sequential warnings on his/her talk page in case it becomes necessary to put in for a block, but to try and avoid that I have also repeatedly tried to engage and coach this user (e.g. here, here, and here), with no success. I think English is not this user's first language, or perhaps there's some other impediment to effective communication. Have you any suggestions for how best to deal with an editor such as this? Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Haven't seen you around for a while... unfortunately, right now I'm at work, and WP has already taken too much of my day. Maybe one of the talk page stalkers can help you out or you can goto WP:AN/WP:ANI to take a look.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 20:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

User requesting review

That user would Neurolysis (talk · contribs). Here's how it began: I gave Neuro a compliment at his nominee's RfA (saying that I wouldn't mind seeing him up at RfA), and he thanked me on my talk page. In my reply, I offered him an admin review, and he accepted. He said that he would be active at WP:UAA, WP:CSD, WP:AFD, WP:PERM, WP:AN, and WP:ANI. There's a small problem, though; I'm not an admin, so I'm not able to review his deleted contribs. Since you're an admin, and you have wisdom in the CSD area, I was wondering if you would help me review Neuro by looking over his deleted contribs? As a side note, please don't mistake him for a new user; he was known as Asenine (talk · contribs) from late April 2006 to early October 2008, and switched to the username "Neurolysis" at that time. Thanks. →Dyl@n620 23:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

He would need to make the request. I won't review people, and share the review, if the person being reviewed isn't on board with it.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 02:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm on board - you've just got to set sail. :) — neuro^(talk) 02:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a question, though; where would notes be taken for the review? →Dyl@n620 15:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I post them on the users talk page... which is why I don't do it unless asked by the user... I don't want any reviews to be a surprise. That being said, I'll try to do a review but RL is going to be real hectic between now and March 3.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 16:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, please don't do anything on this regarding an actual nomination unless Neuro gives his explicit consent. I won't link it for courtesy reasons, but his previous RFA was one of the most strongly-opposed there's ever been, and I find it unlikely they'd want to go through it again. – iridescent 16:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll happily link it. It's at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Asenine 2. I was an asshole, I deserved all the opposition I got, end of. I learnt from it, and would be happy to go through with it again, but if someone is going to nom me, if it would be possible, would they ask me first? I'd like to feel ready first. — neuro^(talk) 17:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

A Nobody^{My talk} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Tiger Woods (dog)

I have added the maintenance tag on the article. I feel that the 2nd & 3rd paragraphs are off-topic. The 2nd paragraph talks about the history of the dog show, not this dog. The 3rd paragraph talks about the dog that beat Tiger. To me, it reads like the article has content to try to break the 1500 character limit for DYK. I'd love to see this excellent hook used for April Fool's Day! Can you find more content on the dog so that the article is more balanced to be primarily about Tiger? For example, how did the dog get to such a high level that it was allowed to compete in the major show? What contests did it win? What contests did it place in? I love the idea behind this article, and I hope it can be used! Royalbroil 00:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

well... there is a reason for that... ;-)---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 01:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)