User talk:Balloonman/archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for expressing your support for me in the User_talk:PumpkinSky#Sanddunes_Sunrise thread and/or participating in the User_talk:PumpkinSky#Ostereierbaum_.28Easter_Egg_Tree.29 thread. Peace to everyone. PumpkinSky talk 00:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making me smile: I ask my friend to check an article (BWV 67) and its hook for DYK and you think "apparently it is some obscure slight" (what's slight, btw?), - interesting, it was nominated well before the discussion above began ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You made the post after I posted on PS's page... honestly, it doesn't make much sense. Then you came here and made the same citation in your criticism of me... so I thought it was intended as some sore of slight... but again, I had no idea of what you were saying. If it is a linguistical difference or wasn't intended as a slight, my apologies. But I really didn't care to read the article to try to figure out what you were saying, in either place. But we've talked since then, so hopefully, we've cleared the air already over some misunderstandings.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 14:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope so, although I still don't know what a slight is ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A "slight" is a veiled insult or subtle attack. When I saw your posts on PS's page referencing Bach's piece... and then you came to my page accusing me of being rude, and then citing Bach's piece, I took your original post on PS's page to be a veiled insult or a "slight". If your post on PS's page wasn't intended to reference me, then I took it wrong after seeing your post here... but again, that is neither here nor there... it's in the past and as far as I am concerned, I'm chalking it up to a misunderstanding. BTW Wo in deutschland wohnen Sie? Oder andres Land? Ich hab' in Stuttgart-Vaihingen gewohnt, aber meine Deutsche ist nicht so gut alles seine English. Ich hab' viele Deutsch vergessen.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 17:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, got it. My nomination about peace was made 11 April. The way of making peace as described in the cantata (repeat softly) can't be repeated too much. No (special) relation to your entry was intended. I merely thought that you used a strong image about other people, too strong for my taste in the context, but I accept that it's my personal view. Turn the page? Understand better? I do. Andreas Scholl sang "He was despised" with us here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peace made Main page history, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh[edit]

I was just thinking, "hey, where's that barnstar he promised me?" :) 28bytes (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decided that 2 days might be seen as a challenge, 3 days it starts to be seen more as a fait accompli.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 01:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's safe to say that, at this point, PS's future is in PS's hands. If he stays on the straight and narrow, creates great content and declines the many temptations and invitations he'll get to partake in a battle, then all will be well. Which is as it should be. 28bytes (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree... and I would be surprised if we have any major problems that have plagued other users who have tried to come back recently. Although I noticed that you removed that barnstar almost as soon as I gave it---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 01:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, not removed, just archived. Thought it was a good epilogue to that book, but time to turn the page, to mangle a metaphor. :) 28bytes (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(watching, smiling) excuse me for un-archiving one entry, 28bytes, still active: 6074 the fist day of Move Like This), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More regarding your RfC comment[edit]

When you're done looking at my talk page and Brendon's talk page, in case you miss it you might want to also look at THIS. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to be kept abreast if you file a case against me.[edit]

You wrote on Griswaldo's user-talk page, "I'm actually preparing a case right now. Did you realize that he violated WP:CANVASS at LEAST 16 times."

All I'm asking is that should you choose to file a case with an intention to block me or influence punitive action against me, please notify me right after filing that case wherever you want to. I'd be happy to clarify if you do not understand what I'm saying. Good luck. Brendon is here 05:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You will be... I haven't decided if it's worth the effort... as I fully expect you to fade into the word work now that the RfC is over.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 05:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can think/do whatever you want. I mean, you're entitled to assume/presume whatever you want just as long as it doesn't break any wiki-policy (I might have unwittingly transgressed some of the behavioral guidelines also). Good-luck with that. Brendon is here 09:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course now Brendon is going out of his way to do what he hasn't for weeks, edit other pages. That's rich! So maybe you'll fade away in a week or two.Griswaldo (talk) 10:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've written about this on Griswaldo's talk. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compy90[edit]

User talk:Compy90 I have no idea what happen but one of BEST contributors , who log in the vest WSOP results has been blocked will you please look into this.thank you in advance.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 05:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically Compy's edits were challenged. He was notified of an ANI discussion and chose not to chime in. He was notified several times that he needed to respond to the ANI discussion, and never did. And he was meanwhile editing elsewhere. Basically, he's been blocked until he is willing to discuss the issues raised at the ANI report. The block is to get him to act.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 06:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ok thank you, hopefully the issues is worked out, which looks to me to be a misunderstanding base on a flawed database he was using.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 21:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That and that he wasn't responding to queries. People were trying to get him to talk to them and he appeared to be ignoring them... which forced the block. If had responded, he would have never been blocked in the first place.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 22:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's my understanding that blocks are not meant to be punitive, based on what he wrote on his unblock request I think he got the message on being commutative on a concern. how long do they intent to keep in on, any idea?▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 02:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time to look into the matter, your approach with the issue for you to make a request based on COI and WW then act yourself was for the best. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 05:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for the funny compliment. Cla68 (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I literally LOLed when I read it. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 01:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can't take full credit... check out number 27 ;-)

Page protection[edit]

This post has been brought to you by Mountain Dew.
Do the Dew!

I saw your comment and it got me to thinking... there are actually a lot of good business opportunities to think of here. One of the FA criteria, I understand, is that the article must be stable: "not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day". As you know, there are lots of edit warriors around, it'd sure be a shame if some of them came across that nice paid FA... but for a reasonable cut of that $1000 fee, I'm sure I could steer those nasty edit warriors away.

Also, while I'm here, need any infoboxes? The crazy-low price of $25 will get you a really nice one. Act now and you'll get a NavBox for 50% off! 28bytes (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wish more posts used blink. MBisanz talk 19:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the first one you get for free. Subsequent blinks are surprisingly affordable, though! I even provide bulk-blink discounts; I can make a whole talk page blink for less than you'd think! Thirsty? 28bytes (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
YES WIDGETS! If I get you to go to Amazon.COM and buy a book from my USER page I coulg get 4% kickback! But seriously, I don't have a problem with paid editors who disclose their editing for pay---I'd rather have it in the open than behind closed doors---and I don't mind people posting links to their jobs (if it happens to be an offer to work for pay so be it.) I do, however, think Cla needs to remove the prices... that does push it over the boundary ;-)---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 22:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precious[edit]

provoking questions
Thank you for asking anybody thought-provoking questions, with sometimes surprising results, Fly high! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm curious as to which question this was in reference too?---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 13:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More than one ;) Did you now that this is a continuation of the program Awesome Wikipedian? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cla68[edit]

As an active participant in the discussion, should you really be the one to close the MfD? --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that particular discussion I hadn't participated, but it was a clear case of Forum Shopping.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 01:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to have the same question. You may not have participated in the MfD itself, but you had participated in the discussion on the principle. This wasn't a forum shop, it was a question over one particular user page, while we also discussed the question of general principle/policy elsewhere. I think it'd be best if you reverted the closure and left it be closed by someone who hasn't taken a position on the issue at all. No harm in letting it run to its conclusion, and when it's that contested, I think it's best to do so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bad close. It should have been allowed to run its course. --Onorem♠Dil 06:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There's no way you could be seen as uninvolved. Prioryman (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So are you going to reverse your improper closure, Balloonman? --TeaDrinker (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree, this should be immediately reversed, it's already been closed for 14.5 hours, much longer and it will have to be restarted from the beginning. Extremely disruptive close from an involved admin who is trying to shut down a discussion with which he disagrees. I will be taking this to DRV if it is not reverted in the very near future. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 14:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not worth the hassle... but it is a complete and utter joke... not only that, but it's a joke that anybody thinks it is going to end any differently. There is clearly no consensus to delete the page and gaining such ain't gonna happen. But I'l let somebody else close it.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Others have reinstated my close twice now, which I'm perfectly fine with. I'm more than willing to defend the close if need be. The MFD was the fourth forum where the discussion had been brought. In NONE of those forums was there anything near a consensus that Cla should delete the advert. The issue failed to gain actionable traction on ANI nor on Jimbo's page. And future discussions were unlikely to garner consensus. Thus an RfC was opened. Once the RfC was opened, which is calling for a wider community input, then the RfC should have run. The MfD might have been appropriate if the RfC was clearly going against Cla's stance; but it wasn't. Thus a FOURTH discussion was opened. Unfortunately, having 4 discussions opened in such a short period is not going to result in a different result as it is more likely to simply attract the same voices that have chimed in 3 other places. This MfD's action is not an indicator of how well watched MfD is, but rather how controversial the debate is elsewhere. Opening it was a clear case of ForumShopping and it should have been closed immediately as such. If I read the comments and thought a consensus might be reached one way or another, I wouldn't have closed it. But it is clear that no consensus exists and that the proper venue is the RfC where wider input can be obtained. Based upon the fact that there were 3 previous discussions each failing to condemn the page/action in the previous 48 hours on this subject, it is easy to call it Forum Shopping.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 17:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I think closing it as a keep (or at least no consensus) would have been the right thing to do, but you made two mistakes. First, you were already involved in the dispute, so there was no way that you could have been seen as impartial. That's a particular problem when something is hotly disputed. I've made the same mistake myself in the past. Second, the MfD was clearly closed prematurely. There was no harm in letting the MfD run its course. Again, if something is hotly disputed, it's better to give people the opportunity to discuss an issue rather than trying to squash discussion. That only leads to bad feeling all round. Please don't think I'm trying to be critical - think of it as a learning opportunity. :-) Prioryman (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I stand behind the close. I was willing to undue it, but others have put it back. I see the OPENING of the MFD as a clear forumshop. Kinda ironic that the policy allows us to forum shop without people saying, "COI" when closure of such is taboo.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 18:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for User:Cla68[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Cla68. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 20:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I would be surprised if it is reopened as it is Forum Shopping.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 21:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand ...[edit]

.. perhaps I'm making too big a deal of this paid editing thing. Featured articles may mean something to wikipedians, but would the ordinary business care whether their article is featured or not, as long as they had the right information featured in it? And, how many editors are willing to slave away for less than minimum wage trying to make something look good? For most competent editors, this would be small change. Of course, some companies would probably pay a lot to get negative information removed. For example, I'm sure BP would pay handsomely to get BP was named by Mother Jones Magazine, an investigative journal that "exposes the evils of the corporate world, the government, and the mainstream media",[67] as one of the ten worst corporations in both 2001 and 2005 based on its environmental and human rights records removed from the article, but will they be able to do so? A disclosed paid editor would be booted out of any discussion on that in seconds flat. --regentspark (comment) 13:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Take: Paid editing happens. We cannot stop it from happening, it happens. Often times it is benign---an employee for a company sees an edit on an article related to said company and cleans it up/fixes it. It might even be part of the employees job to do so. Another employee might see it as part of his/her job to improve articles on a subject related to the industry in which they are in---an oil company employee might work on articles related to oil refineries/products/terms. Their object is to improve information relative to their profession and to help educate the public. They are not trying to misrepresent issues but to improve the project. A university student/museum curator might be hired to work on improving articles related to specific subjects the university/museum find important---again not to advocate a position, but to improve public knowledge of these subjects.

In none of those scenarios is there a real problem with paid editing. In each, the motive is to improve the project and to educate the readership. Now it might be nice to know that the person is being paid---the employee for the oil company might be striving to provide a neutral article, but might not be aware of his/her own biases. (Similar to a volunteer working on a religion/political article to which they belong.)

The problem arises when we are not dealing with paid ediitng, but rather paid advocacy---that is where the concern raised by RegentsPark comes in. But which would you rather encounter a scenario wherein somebody is getting paid, but doing so anonymously or where they are open about it? If they are open about their being paid, it naturally puts certain constraints on them. They now know that people are watching them closer and that their edits/comments are more closely scrutinized. Self-disclosure of a Paid-editor status SHOULD naturally be an impediment upon one's ability to edit... for the reason mentioned above---an unreasonable paid editor would loose credibility just as an unreasonable member of reliigon X/political party Y looses credibility. Being self disclosed, forces paid editors to be cognizant of their attitudes and behaviors, lest they loose credibility and end up getting blocked/banned from the topic.

So why would somebody want to self disclose? Because we could make the alternative worse. Failure to disclose a paid relationship would be grounds for automatic blocking/banning. It would be an act of bad faith---and the assumption of good faith would go out the window with said user. Potentially adding of a note to said articles indicating that said article was edited by a POV warrior.

Paid editors who are working in good faith, however, might come to be somewhat revered/respected as such. "John Smith is a paid employee of the Acme Corp, but he does a very good job at both improving the article and keeping neutralility on the subject." By declaring oneself as a paid editor, you might be seen as a subject matter expert. So while there are definite disadvantages, there would be similiar advantages as well.

Paid ediitng happens... the best way to address the subject isn't to bury our heads and pretend that we can prevent it... but rather figure out a way that it can be controlled/monitored.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 16:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Back[edit]

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

--SKATER Is Back 15:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Email[edit]

Hello, Balloonman. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nothing important, Take your time.--SKATER Is Back 15:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your perspective would be valued[edit]

Hi there. I would appreciate it if you could visit Talk:Muhammad. The article, Muhammad, has changed in a significant way since it originally passed WP:GA several years ago. It now states in the opening paragraph that Mohammad is the Founder of Islam and has relegated to a note at the end of the article that Muslims, themselves don't believe this. I have started a discussion on the talk page concerning this and would value your input. Thanks so much. Veritycheck (talk)Veritycheck (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 May 1[edit]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

I hope that in the future you will at least seek input from an uninvolved editor before speedy-closing a discussion on an issue you are involved in. Better though, just don't do it. Happy editing! -RunningOnBrains(talk) 05:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ARS RfC[edit]

Could you find an uninvolved admin willing to close the RfC on ARS? It has been over three weeks since the last comment on the page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Another Round (group)[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you![edit]

Nice to meet you! A little-known fact about me: I met Robyn Hitchcock back in the 90s. Elizium23 (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassed[edit]

You had never previously edited Catholics for Choice and do not appear to frequent AE. Were you asked to come to the AE discussion and to the article? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have Esoglou on my Watch list from an argument that the two of us had about a year ago and when I saw the Arbitration case it caught my attention. (See Charles Chaput's talk page---we actually got pretty heated with one another at the time and I accused him as ABF.)---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 19:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking at my watchpage, it was the unblock by Sarek that caught my attention.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 19:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And personally, I don't see what the big deal is in removing a single contentious word. The name implies Catholic and the mission implies catholic. So the word catholic is already used 4 times in the first sentence. To call it a "Catholic Organization" is contentious, misleading, and simply poor writing.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 19:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could say the same to you. What's the big deal in leaving in a single contentious word? The fact you disagree with is already implied, so it's not adding anything. As for your last three accusations: it's contentious to people who care more about their personal opinions than reliable sources, but we don't generally care about that; it's not misleading because it's exactly what the sources say; and it's not poor writing because in English, the language of en.wikipedia, it is possible to string together two adjectives. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is objectively not true and a POV. Removing the single word does NOT lessen the implied association... it just removes the POV that is being interjected. Catholics for Choice...formerly catholics for free choice... gives voice to Catholics... catholic tradition. It is clearly implied that the group has a Catholic foundation. Adding the word "catholic organization" implies that it is an official organization, which it is not. Removal is POV neutral and avoids the contention.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 19:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pseudo-Richard has started a talk section for this, but I don't think saying it's Catholic implies that it's affiliated with the RCC hierarchy. (Similarly, "American" doesn't imply affiliated with the US govt, etc.) I go into this on the talk page, but if we decide that we can only use "Catholic" for official groups, that's a big change that affects more than this one article. And no, on WP, religion is not objectively true or not true. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the House Unamerica activities board was disbanded.... no seriously, there is a significant difference here. There is no governing agency which declares organizations/groups unamerican. Rush can call something unamerican, that doesn't make it so. Somebody could call Rush unamerican, that doesn't make it so. Here we are talking about an organization who does have the authority and responsibility to govern these issues calling the CFC not a catholic organization. And the affiliation being perported is that tying itself to the Roman Catholic Church. This makes it a different issue... but I have yet to see somebody argue that 5 uses of the word Catholic in the lead sentence is better english than 4. Nor have I see anybody make a credible argument that people will misinterpret or read the lead wrong if the word is removed, but they may if it is included. To me this is a pretty open and shut case.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 22:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, AE is not the place for content disputes. You've already made the point on the article talk page (where I responded to you that writing "it doesn't matter what reliable sources say" is not going to help you). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And we have reliable sources at odds---but the reliable sources which quote the authoritative source is clear.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 19:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which reliable sources are you referring to that quote an "authoritative" source? No one has attempted to provide reliable secondary sources that quote the bishops' statement; if they had, I would not have to keep saying that it is self-published. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I provided a source wherein the president of CFC testified before Congress and cited near verbatum the decree by the bishops. If the President of the CFC quotes it in a secondary source... plus, self-published sources are not blanketly verbotten...especially when it comes to matters of internal politics such as membership and what is or is not part of the group. The USCCB/NCCB has the authority to speak on what is Catholic and what is not. So it does not need a secondary source, the primary source simply has to be used with care.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 20:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on renaming and reorganization of categories[edit]

Would this be of interest to you? I am not suggesting, still less asking, that you intervene. Esoglou (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Balloonman/archive_27&oldid=1142878159"