Faithlessthewonderboy (talk | contribs) →CSD award userbox: new section |
Balloonman (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 206: | Line 206: | ||
Hey Balloonman, I've created (well, [[User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day!|borrowed]]) a userbox (located at [[User:Balloonman/CSD award/userbox]]) to identify recipients of your CSD'er of the Week award. I just did this on a whim - if you don't feel that this is something you're interested in, feel free to delete it (especially since it's in your user space). I assure you my feelings won't be hurt. :-) Cheers, [[User:Faithlessthewonderboy|<span style="color:blue">'''faithless'''</span>]] [[User talk:Faithlessthewonderboy|<small><span style="color:black">(<sup>'''speak'''</sup>)</span></small>]] 10:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC) |
Hey Balloonman, I've created (well, [[User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day!|borrowed]]) a userbox (located at [[User:Balloonman/CSD award/userbox]]) to identify recipients of your CSD'er of the Week award. I just did this on a whim - if you don't feel that this is something you're interested in, feel free to delete it (especially since it's in your user space). I assure you my feelings won't be hurt. :-) Cheers, [[User:Faithlessthewonderboy|<span style="color:blue">'''faithless'''</span>]] [[User talk:Faithlessthewonderboy|<small><span style="color:black">(<sup>'''speak'''</sup>)</span></small>]] 10:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
:Actually, it was something that I was thinking of doing myself... I just hadn't gotten around to it, so thank you.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]''<small>[[User:Balloonman/CSD Survey|CSD Survey Results]]</small> 12:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:57, 14 January 2009
Unless otherwise specified, I will respond to you on the page where the conversation started, whether that is your talk page or mine. |
|
Quicklinks |
---|
Other Excellent articles on CSD |
{{Talkback|Balloonman|RE: }}
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pickersgill-Cunliffe | 192 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Open | 00:35, 15 June 2024 | 11 hours | no | report |
Csd survey Results
Well, I've posted the results for the CSD survey---Balloonman PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 02:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- I just found your survey - great idea! It's fun to go through the questionnaire. I hope I'm not too late. Sorry, I have been evading the CSD discussion lately, but I still support your initiative. Please let me know when there are any major things, such as new surveys, where you'd appreciate my participation. — Sebastian 04:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC) (I stopped watching this page. If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and ping me.)
- Wow. I just went through these, and I am stunned at how often the CSD are misused. Thank you for this very enlightening experience :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm asking a few RFA regulars (no offense intended!) to review two threads I'm thinking of posting to WT:RFA at User:Barneca/RFA sandbox and give me a little feedback on:
- Whether you think I'd be wasting my time
- If you can think of any drastic improvements I could make prior to posting this
- Which option you think I should pursue (I don't think proposing both, and having people "vote", is a good idea; far too easily sidetracked)
- If you think there's a good Option 3 that I haven't considered
- Any other feedback you're interested in giving me
I'll probably post something to WT:RFA next week, after my schedule eases a little bit, so no critical rush to reply; you've probably got 5+ days before I post anything anywhere. If someone comes up with significant changes I think are good ideas, I'll probably delay even longer.
If you're interested, please post to the sandbox's talk page. If you are not Balloonman, but one of his talk page stalkers reading this, you're welcome to comment as well; I'm not trying to hide this from anyone, just iron out any obvious kinks before it goes live, to prevent minutiae from sidetracking the discussion (that seems to happen quite often). I'm hoping against hope that this leads to actual change, rather than fruitless discussion, so I really want to try to get all my ducks in a row before springing this on WT:RFA.
Thanks in advance, and sorry if this spam is unwelcome; I won't bug you again. --barneca (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I've sent you e-mail
I've sent you e-mail. ayematthew @ 19:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I assume RfA is not in my future. :| ayematthew @ 00:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Haven't said that yet... I need to go back through your edits and see if first impressions are valid impressions.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 01:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- There are many who don't see RfA in their futures, including myself. Would it bother you to be another one of those? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, I wouldn't mind at all. I don't really care, but with the apparent "shortage" of admins, it was suggested I run (but I wanted a review first). I don't really plan on running at this point. ayematthew @ 02:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Review
Thanks for the review, I just wanted to see where I'm at cause I knew it would be a while before I should go at it. But as far as your last concern goes, I do not use a tool, all of my edits are hand done. But anyways thanks for the review!--Iamawesome800 14:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Notice of request for deletion of editor Balloonman :)
Balloonman, the editor you are, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that you satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space. Your opinions on yourself are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion#Balloonman and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit during the discussion but should not remove the nomination (unless you wish not to participate); such removal will not end the deletion discussion (actually it will). Thank you, and have a good sense of humor :). —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 14:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
On a more serious note
Hey B'man. I'm considering reapplying for adminship later this year (perhaps late Feburary-early March) and currently undergoing a form of admin coaching (more of an extensive review) by Malinaccier and in part by Lankiveil. That said, I appreciate how active you are at WP:RfA and you have a great degree of accuracy when you review candidates. I was wondering if you could place me on your list of candidates at the top of this page who are looking for a review, just so I can get your thoughts on my reapplication? I want to get this time right seeing as it's my third nomination and going past three is almost a point of no return. I don't think it's possible to get too much critique before an RfA. If you're interested, my 'admin coaching' page is located here. Many thanks in advance, if you're too busy then no worries :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 14:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'll support you again; just like I did back in April ;) On a side note: I'm spending too much time on Balloonman's talk page. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- You and me both ;-)---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 04:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Haha, many thanks Lazulilasher. I'm suprised that this page is becoming remarkably like Keeper's where you post something any many, many others will see it. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nobody's page will be quite like keepers for a long time.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 14:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Haha, many thanks Lazulilasher. I'm suprised that this page is becoming remarkably like Keeper's where you post something any many, many others will see it. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- You and me both ;-)---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 04:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Do great minds think alike?
Check out the timing on this: my note to you and this. All done within one minute of each other. Wow. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- and I already responded there ;-) ---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 02:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Stereotypes of ...
Here's why all of this garbage needs to be done away with. See the deleted revisions of Talk:Stereotypes of Whites. I hadn't even noticed this before - I just cleaned it up as an orphaned redirect to the page you deleted. This whole bit of nonsense is one user's intentional disruption, not a serious effort at encyclopedic articles. --B (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- While there may be merit to an article that gives an encyclopedic treatment to "white" people, e.g. Stereotypes of African Americans, that is not this article. There are reliable sources that examine the topic, including books that relate the phenomenon to stereotypes of other racial identities. Alas, I am glad that you closed that AfD, and thank you for that notice. • Freechild'sup? 03:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, although the word stereotype is a loaded one in and of itself. Academic articles on the subject would use a less inflamitory term, unless they were dealing with "African American Stereotypes of White People" or "Caucassian stereotypes of Asians" or "Asian stereotypes of blacks." As a demographic, there are attributes that fit African Americans, Caucassians Americans, Asian Americans, etc that have been studied and are worthy of an encyclopedia... but this wasn't it.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 04:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- What term or terms do they use? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- They might use characteristics, attributes, generalities, etc. From my experience, when academics are talking about subjective attributes, they try to find terms that are less loaded and convey the sense that the attribute is neutral and based upon scientific research. Stereotypes has a connotation of personal bias and fallacy. Eg if I were to say, "GROUPA do worse at school than GROUPB]" then that is a stereotype---it is a statement that might be true or false. Now, if I were to produce a study that showed GROUPB traditionally do better in school than GROUPA, I don't want my study to be seen as stereotyping, but rather presenting objective facts on a potentially controversial subject. Stereotypes are known to be wrong.
Now, GROUPB may have stereotypes about GROUPA, and those stereotypes might be a subject worthy of studying on their own merit. In this case, the scholar might choose to use the term stereotype because they are talking about GROUPB's perceptions of GROUPA which may or may not be based on reality.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 05:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- However, I would suggest that rather than seeing this from a purely academic approach the challenge would be to prove the notability of the topic of stereotypes of XYZ, and solely from that angle the topic would prove worthy. WP is not so much about the "rightness" or "wrongness" of a topic insomuch as it is about notability, right? If it were purely an issue of "rightness" as much as half of the project would simply *poof* disappear. • Freechild'sup? 14:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- They might use characteristics, attributes, generalities, etc. From my experience, when academics are talking about subjective attributes, they try to find terms that are less loaded and convey the sense that the attribute is neutral and based upon scientific research. Stereotypes has a connotation of personal bias and fallacy. Eg if I were to say, "GROUPA do worse at school than GROUPB]" then that is a stereotype---it is a statement that might be true or false. Now, if I were to produce a study that showed GROUPB traditionally do better in school than GROUPA, I don't want my study to be seen as stereotyping, but rather presenting objective facts on a potentially controversial subject. Stereotypes are known to be wrong.
- What term or terms do they use? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, although the word stereotype is a loaded one in and of itself. Academic articles on the subject would use a less inflamitory term, unless they were dealing with "African American Stereotypes of White People" or "Caucassian stereotypes of Asians" or "Asian stereotypes of blacks." As a demographic, there are attributes that fit African Americans, Caucassians Americans, Asian Americans, etc that have been studied and are worthy of an encyclopedia... but this wasn't it.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 04:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Per the preceding conversation I rewrote Stereotypes of white people. I hope that you let me know what you think of its present form. • Freechild'sup? 05:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Incorrect speedy deletion
Note that your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of white people wasn't actually correct. The article that you deleted was created 1 day after the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of whites. However, note that at the time of that latter closure the article had been renamed, during the AFD discussion, first to Stereotypes of white race ethnic groups and then to Stereotypes of ethnic groups from the white race, which is where it was deleted at the closure of that discussion. Compare the "re-creation" at Stereotypes of white people to the deleted Stereotypes of ethnic groups from the white race. They are noticably different. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'll take another look at this to see if I can make heads or tails of this...---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 15:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- The history is complex. It took me a fair while to track through all of the deleted edits, move logs, and AFD discussions. Have a look at what I explained at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:Stereotypes of Jews. Uncle G (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Is your mail working?
Wikipedia's been having technical issues and that may be affecting mail. I sent you a mail several days ago. I resent it yesterday. I got cc's both times. If it's not in your mailbox or spam folder, this needs to be tested further and reported to WP:Village Pump (technical). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm, missed them for some reason.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 04:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Re: Review
Thank you for your time you put into my review. I just did a review because I reached the edit benchmark stated on the admin coaching page. Maybe when I finish school I will start working on content building. Thanks again. Leujohn (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The discussion about Stereotypes about White people was perhaps prematurely closed. 24 hours ( rough estimate) is not enough time to close the discussion IMHO. Could we perhaps open it again so that I might vote and also to give others a chance to weigh in?Die4Dixie (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't had a chance to look into it, but the version that was on there was a clear G10 violation. There was an older version that looked ok but it appeared to be a version that was previously deleted via an AFD. That being said, I've been told that the AFD was actually for a different article, but that there were a number of page moves/etc. I'm going to research this tonight, and if what I've been told about the page moves/renames/etc is accurate, then I will have no problem reopening. IF the article as of August 27 is different from the one that was debated, then I will have no problem reopening the discussion. Let me look into it, and trust me, I am not afraid to admit I don't know everything.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 01:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- No accusation on my part, we are cool. If it is not something that can be done becasue of the possiblities listed above, I'm alright with that. TRhank you for taking the time to respond. Cordially,- Die4Dixie (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Didn't take it as an accusation. This article apparently has a complex history. Like I said, the version that was originally nominated is a G10--attack page delete. The question is, is there an older version that can be used? If there is, then I have no problem reverting to THAT version and starting the debate over. But the version originally nominated, G10.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 01:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- No accusation on my part, we are cool. If it is not something that can be done becasue of the possiblities listed above, I'm alright with that. TRhank you for taking the time to respond. Cordially,- Die4Dixie (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Review
Hi Balloonman. To expand on my addition to your RfA Reviews list, I am considering an RfA in the near future, but I would really appreciate your input first. One of the tasks I enjoy is new page patrolling, and CSD is one of the areas I'd like to work in. Would you be able to review my edits in general, but particularly those related to speedy deletion? Thanks in advance, and no hurry. :) Somno (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Crat track?
Re: a comment you made elsewhere: I thought in a project like Wikipedia, the "people" hierarchy was reversed: good-content creators were at the top of the pecking orders, then the janitors, then the plumbers and sewer-cleaner-outers, and so on. Good content writers should be too busy to mess around with wikipolitics and making administrative decisions, if they have the tools at all, it's so they can be more efficient creating content. This is distinct from the article hierarchy, which works normally: spamcruft to be deleted on the bottom, C- and B-class articles in the middle, and featured content at the top.
I kid only slightly, many of the personality traits that make a good content writer, especially someone working collaboratively, are the very traits that make a good admin, at least as far as the human-relationship and side and article-rescue-from-deletion sides go. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Being a good content builder is a sign that people may share the same skills that make good admins... but it isn't always the case. Let me use two examples, Malleus and Tony1, both of them are great content builders and the project would be worse off without them. But neither of them will ever pass an RfA unless they underwent complete personality changes in regards to the project. There are others who are great content builders, but would never pass an rfa. There are also people who are great with consensus building and working in contentious areas who are lousy content builders. Being good at one is not the same as being good at both. Crat Track involves people who have the interpersonal ability AND spend time learning the policies/guidelines. Somebody on the 'crat track isn't necessarily going to be somebody who promotes a lot of articles to FA. In fact, I suspect that most people who work on FA's wouldn't become a crat.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 23:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am sorry, what does Crat Track mean? At first I thought you were making fun of the horrid WP:Coatrack essay.
- Would you both agree that the fastest way to become an editor is to become a policeman: help delete articles and stop vandals, not writing good content?
- A very intelligent and thoughtgul editor wrote on my talk page today:
- travb (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not part of both, but: you become an editor by pressing the edit button once. The path to what's usually called an established editor is I think engange in discussions, observe other editors' changes, and read the consensus pages (policies and guidelines) to get a feeling for why things are done the way they are. This all should be focused of course on the encyclopaedic content, but I don't think it matters if you focus more on building or on maintaining. The maintainance route may be faster, but only because researching and writing an article is harder work that takes more time. Both routes however have their distinct rewards.
The Crat Track would then be the path to becoming a bureaucrat.
Interesting thought about attracting the reasonable. I'm afraid that's a more general problem, since life rewards the tenacious, too. --Amalthea 12:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Crat Track is talking about the path to becoming a beraucrat---basically an admin on steroids. They have a few more buttons than non-admins (name changes and promoting admins mainly.) But no, I would not agree that the fastest way to become an editor is to become a policeman. In fact, deleting articles and stopping vandals doesn't require much skill/knowledge. One becomes a better editor by understanding the process and how to improve things. Deleting articles doesn't show that you can improve an article, getting in there an making changes does that. Stopping vandals does not show that you know how to collaborate with others, but it might show that you know how to be a bully! A person can become an admin without ever reporting somebody to AIV or submitting a single article for CSD. A person can not become an admin without showing some costructive work on articles.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 15:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not part of both, but: you become an editor by pressing the edit button once. The path to what's usually called an established editor is I think engange in discussions, observe other editors' changes, and read the consensus pages (policies and guidelines) to get a feeling for why things are done the way they are. This all should be focused of course on the encyclopaedic content, but I don't think it matters if you focus more on building or on maintaining. The maintainance route may be faster, but only because researching and writing an article is harder work that takes more time. Both routes however have their distinct rewards.
IPA
May be bitter and hoppy, but always the coldest in the fridge! LeadSongDog (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- THANK YOU! I thought nobody would catch the joke... people were responding as if I made a serious comment! I feel much better now!---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 23:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm a stout one, myself;-) LeadSongDog (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
You have some :~) MBisanz talk 22:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I could be wrong...
But don't you have the RfA scoreboard twice on your talk? Enigmamsg 08:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- You can always be wrong... actually, I have two different score boards... I probably could get rid of one. One doesn't report RFB's and that one tends to be more up-to-date than the one that does.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 14:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- oh yeah, and have you seen User talk:Balloonaman? It came up under suggestions as I was entering your talk into the search box. Enigmamsg 06:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it was a vandalism only account... hadn't made any edits since november, but I went ahead and indef blocked it as it was an obvious spoof account, and performing vandalism only. (all edits were deleted.)---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 06:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- oh yeah, and have you seen User talk:Balloonaman? It came up under suggestions as I was entering your talk into the search box. Enigmamsg 06:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Original Barnstar | ||
This barnstar is given to Balloonman for his tireless and brilliant work on WP:Criteria for speedy deletion, you are truly an inspiration to all wikipedians who are here to write an encyclopedia. Your dedication touches the lives of hundreds of editors, who never even know that you helped them. Thank you so much. travb (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks. It is always cool to get recognition from people... especially those that you don't know too well.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 14:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Boulder Beer Company? Hey, what a great article...very nice! I'll drink to that! (P.S. Check your e-mail about that used car.) Ecoleetage (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Woahh, Balloonman and article writing? I've only ever seen you in RfA situations so this came as a little shock :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, I have 2 FA to my name... one where I was the primary force and the other as a supporting cast... and I've started 62 articles.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 00:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- And this should be heading to DYK very soon, too! Ecoleetage (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Working on Great Divide Brewing Company now...---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 02:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- And this should be heading to DYK very soon, too! Ecoleetage (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Spread the word! Plenty of stuff to work with, too: [1]. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, I have 2 FA to my name... one where I was the primary force and the other as a supporting cast... and I've started 62 articles.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 00:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Poke
Dear BALLOONMAN, your rename is done. Giggy (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- thanks giggy---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 01:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)
The December 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) 02:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Across the Great Divide (Brewery)
Hey, the new article is smashing...but you originally called it Great American Brewery Company instead of Great Divide Brewery Company. I just moved the title to its proper name. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- It was also "Brewing Company" rather than "Brewery Company." Changes made. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned your study here: User_talk:Inclusionist#Study Comments are welcome about my proposal and if it is worth the time. travb (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- How would I rate their experience? Do you think this proposal is worth my time? travb (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Boulder Beer Company
--Dravecky (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
CSDer of the week - thank you
Wow - thank you. Worlds away from the the usual "you f*ck*ng b*tch, why did you delete my page?" that usually results from a CSD session!! Thanks again, best, Nancy talk 05:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- No problem, I was really impressed with your work... I was becoming very disenheartened because a few of the people I was reviewing were failing to meet my criteria. Two of the three came close, but then would drop the ball--usually with a G1 or A7 deletion. I was starting to get discouraged, when I spotted you.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 06:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
He's at it again
After basically blowing us off at the poker Project Special:Contributions/DegenFarang he's on another wild vandalism spree. It would be nice if you reverted him this time, and blocked him. 2005 (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- I blocked him for one hour to stop him from his rampage. He needs to discuss the edits and reach a consensus on them.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 03:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Some of his edits don't |even make sense. Apparently he thinks the Las vegas Sun and Pokerstars and Poker babes are the same site or something. Obviously he's both just attacking my edits, and he wants to spam his website amongst the mess. I hope someone else reverts all those edits, but I'll do it if I have to. I'm not going to have someone mess up every article I've worked on, and those I have not to. 2005 (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Let me know if he gets back into the vandalism schtick after his block... and I will block for longer... if I don't respond immediately (say 5 minutes) goto ANI, and let them know... if I'm on, I'll see it right away---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 03:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Some of his edits don't |even make sense. Apparently he thinks the Las vegas Sun and Pokerstars and Poker babes are the same site or something. Obviously he's both just attacking my edits, and he wants to spam his website amongst the mess. I hope someone else reverts all those edits, but I'll do it if I have to. I'm not going to have someone mess up every article I've worked on, and those I have not to. 2005 (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Username change
Hi, I've replied to the post you made on the username change page. Thanks for your initial response. Oral Thrush (talk) 07:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
I have found everything you have said to all involved about this poker babes issue very fair and impartial, and I just wanted to thank you for it. I'm sorry I went about this in the way that I did, I was not aware there were people like you to appeal to or pages such as the one we are using now to talk about it. So thanks again!DegenFarang (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- No problem, there are options out there. If you need help, feel free to ask for it at WP:help, that's the helpdesk where you can get guidance from an experienced voice, or you can add {{helpme}} to your page, and this will attract the attention of somebody who will come to your page an help. There are also wp:AN and WP:ANI. WP:AN is where you can go to ask administrators for guidance/help. WP:ANI is where you can go if there is a problem and you need administrator intervention. Generally, when you get into a content dispute with somebody, it is generally best to discuss it with them on the articles talk page. Or, if there are multiple pages involved, check to see if there is a common project for all of those pages. Projects that monitor the page can be found on the articles talk page, and you can raise the question there. Wikipedia is about consensus and working together. Some people have to be reminded that they don't own the articles but generally our goal is to Assume Good Faith. Eg I made the assumption that you were working to improve the articles you were working on, which is why I only gave you an hour block... it wasn't meant to be a punative, but rather I needed to stop you from making changes on 50 pages without discussing them. It was turning into an edit war. (Since you are a newbie, I'm going to leave a talk back template on your page, but as a general rule, I assume that if you leave a message on my page that you are watching my page.)---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 15:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- I was not watching your page, I am now. Thanks again that was some helpful info there! DegenFarang (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
CSD'er of the week (belated)
A belated "thank you". A nice change from the normal loads of vandalism I get on my talk page ;) (or the continual "why did you delete my image" after they just saw the deletion reason when they uploaded it!!) It must have been a daunting task to go through my deletion log, considering that I've got about 475 deletions in sum in just the last week alone! My one comment that I'd make is that if one makes an error in the reason (say you're thinking A7 and use G7) and then have that D'oh! moment, there's no way to go back and say, 'bloody... expletive deleted... wrong #, should have been X instead of Y, my bad'. I've wanted to do that a couple of times, but found that the only possible way was to restore the article/file and the re-delete it with the right number - not something that seems worthwhile at all! But, my gripe on that little missing feature aside, thanks for the recognition! Skier Dude (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- No problem, that is part of the reason why I include in my criteria that if it is deleted under the wrong criteria, there are more options. But you are welcome, I've been trying to recognize people who do a good job with CSD's... I want to see people doing a better more thoughtful job with it and decided the best way to encourage that would be positive reinforcement... recognize superior work!---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 01:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
CSD award userbox
Hey Balloonman, I've created (well, borrowed) a userbox (located at User:Balloonman/CSD award/userbox) to identify recipients of your CSD'er of the Week award. I just did this on a whim - if you don't feel that this is something you're interested in, feel free to delete it (especially since it's in your user space). I assure you my feelings won't be hurt. :-) Cheers, faithless (speak) 10:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, it was something that I was thinking of doing myself... I just hadn't gotten around to it, so thank you.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 12:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)