User talk:Balloonman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Unless otherwise specified, I will respond to you on the page where the conversation started, whether that is your talk page or mine. That way the conversation is easier to follow. If you leave me a message here, you might want to watchlist this page until you get my response. If I posted on your talk page, I will watch your page for responses.


Hello, Balloonman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Ginkgo100 23:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] David coderre

A tag has been placed on David coderre, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable. If you can indicate why David coderre is really notable, you can contest the tagging. To do this, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and leave a note on Talk:David coderre, explaining how David coderre is notable. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

Please read the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, articles #7) and our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.Seraphimblade 04:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you are quick. I barely had time to save the first draft, view the page to make sure that I had my links working, and check it again before you added the speedy deletion note, which I am disputing. David Coderre is the major figure in this emerging field of Audit work---as is notable based upon the numerous articles and books he has written.
NOTE: The following response is in reference to a comment on Seraphimblade's page Balloonman 20:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
While I thank you for your advice, I am unsure as to your complaint. I in fact am the one who withdrew the speedy delete nom on David Coderre, after seeing that I was mistaken and he was likely to meet notability. I don't go googling for notability-establishing it is in my opinion the job of the page's author, at least if the person is not clearly and obviously notable (an Einstein or a Roosevelt). However, I will take your advice under consideration and thank you for providing it.
I do place a lot of speedy tags, as I was reviewing new articles. Most of these are on "John is the greatest person in the world" or "Jane is a bitch" type articles, and I'm not a bit sorry to see those go! Of course, some of the nominations might be more controversial, but that's why we have administrative review-if the administrator thinks there's any chance it can stay, he/she should not and generally will not speedy. Seraphimblade 20:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I've taken a look at your edits/contributions and you have a knack for adding speedy within minutes of a new article being posted. Looking at the people who make a lot of these posts, they are often newbies or inexperienced users (such as myself) who are not familiar with utilizing Sandboxes.
Let me share my reflections on your readiness to place speedy deletion tags on a post within minutes of an articles creation.
As an inexperienced wiki, I attempted to create an article on David Coderre. I saved the article in a rough draft form to view the page. I notice that the links/published works on the page are wrong. I edit the page, and view it again. This takes me 3 minutes. During that 3 minute period, you have already tagged the page for Speedy Deletion and placed a tag on my user page.
As I am inexperienced, this put a sour taste in my mouth. Suddenly, I'm trying to figure out how to save the article I'm working on rather than improving it and finishing it---because you've marked it for Speedy quicker than I can edit it.
What I'd like to see is that if an article has been completed in the last 10-15 minutes rather than placing a speedy deletion on the page, put a normal 5 day deletion tag on the page. That way if the user is writing a new article in the 'live' article realm it doesn't get deleted before they finish. It also alerts the user that unless the article is improved, that it will be deleted. This is particularly true with articles that make ANY reference to notability/publications/etc. My original post included notes about several books and a request to write the GTAG on Continuous Monitoring.
If the article has sat there for 10-15 minutes, it probably isn't a person writing an article in the live setting or the newbie has finished the article. (This does change if the person simply is writing "X is the greatest/bitch," but give us newbies a chance.)Balloonman 05:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your response, I understand your concern a lot better now. I will take that under consideration and take some time before placing the tag on questionable articles. (Of course, "John is the greatest guy in the world" still gets speedied ASAP.) :) Thank you for your feedback. Seraphimblade 08:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem... I'm just glad things worked out... on an unrelated note, there is a problem with "notability." A lot of people are notable, without being "the greatest," "most influencial," etc... but I notice that on Wikipedia, almost everybody is the "Most" or the "Greatest" something. It kind of devalues Wikipedia that everybody gets such a label to be "notable."Balloonman 18:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your concerns about articles in progress

I saw your comment in the AfD for Military brats and I agree, it is a problem that some people are quick to leap to deletion, and I find it annoying myself.

Anyway, there are some occasional solutions, though they depend on a given editor recognizing them and refraining from action.

For example, you can add a stub-template to an article Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types or you can add a template like some found here Wikipedia:Template_messages/Maintenance or you can add a message to the talk page. Mister.Manticore 16:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mister.Manticore. I liked the "Underconstruction" tag as I don't mind people helping out with the update. I also appreciate your assistance in defending the article. I think the Dark jumped the gun in nominating this as an AfD, but oh well. It looks as if it will easily survive it. His comment about "Brat" being an opinion makes be believe that he thought the term was a subjective term and that the list was thus slanderous.Balloonman 17:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military brat

Further to your comments on my talk page, I did not remove any tags on the above noted pages Afd, I simply applied a category to the ongoing discussion. The discussion is still open and will be closed by an admin once a concensus has been reached about deletion or not. The AfD notice should remain on the article until it has been closed. As a final note, it is customary when placing a note on a talk or discussion page, to end your comments with four tildies (~~~~) to sign and date your note. If there are any other questions please let me know on my talk page.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I usually try to remember to put the (~~~~)... must have forgotten... I'm still somewhat new....Balloonman 04:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of a link

Hello, Balloonman. I live in China & only just got access to Wikipedia this week when The Great FireWall of China allowed it in! I was very excited. I posted a link to a website I designed for global nomads which you deleted. You cited that it was a personal page. Though it was created by me, it is a database with definitions regarding GNs, various information & a forum as well as profiles of members. Please elaborate on your reasoning for considering it a "personal page". As I said, I am brand new to the Wiki so please forgive me for any errors in this coding! I'm trying to copy from those who have come before. I look forward to hearing from you at my talk page... --User:Expatstef (talk) --Stef 10:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Beijing, Nov. 6, 2006

Responding on EXPATSTEF's userpage.Balloonman 18:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate your feedback. In fact, I would appreciate it if you could take a look at my site & give me feedback on it, too. I believe you are a global nomad & I like to hear what fellow GNs have to say about it. Ruth Van Reken (TCK), Norma McCaig (GNI), Brian Lenius (GNVV), Charlie Stevenson (Geolinks) & Joe Condrill (Overseas Brats) all contributed to it to various degrees & yet it hasn't caught on. One day perhaps it'll be as big as the other pages, but it takes word of mouth within the community or it's doomed. --User:Expatstef (talk) --Stef 10:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy Deletion

When using the speedy deletion templates, don't forget that automatic reasons need a "-", whereas manual ones take "|". For example, use "db-bio". Thanks for helping out on deletion patrol! yandman 10:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good... last night was the first time I did any "patrolling." It was also my first time to nominate anybody for deletion!

[edit] Military brat

Can you expand the acronyms for DoDDs and DoDEA? I know they're DOD schools but i don't know more than that. --AW 17:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

DoDDS = Department of Defense Dependent Schools
DoDEA = Department of Defense Education Activity
DoDDS appears to be the older acronym (the one I grew up with) while DoDEA seems to be what is used today. It is a thing that needs to be cleaned up in the article. It is something that I learned about while updating the page.Balloonman 19:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Why don't we just put Department of Defense schools. No reason to put in an acronym where it's not really needed. --AW 21:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm Kosher with that... I liked the DoDDS because that's exactly what you were saying... I'm not a big fan of the DoDEA---although that is probably because I'm not use to it... but DoDDS is explicitly talking about the schools ;-) Balloonman 23:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article you might want to look at

I created an article with the unwieldy title of List of Roman Catholic organizations not in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church, which I thought you might be interested in helping with. Cheers! <3 --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 21:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I really don't like the title... it might be viewed as POV as the groups may not agree with the categorization that they aren't in full communion. What about Roman Catholic Sects and Movements with a sociological definition of what a sect/movement is?Balloonman 23:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. ticker symbols (2nd Nomination)

Hi, User:Balloonman, and thanks for commenting on this propsed deletion! Unfortunately, we are currently having trouble establishing a rough consensus so I encourage you to comment on the lengthy debate and help make Wikipedia more encyclopedic and verifiable! Flying Hamster 20:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military Brat

Response at my talk page. --Rifleman 82 17:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Military brat

I've fixed it; you actually have to add the request to the list by hand—it doesn't update automatically! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 14:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

OK I was wondering about that... I thought when you clicked on the banner that it took you to where the request was going to be. Thanks.Balloonman 14:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It does, but when you finish writing up the request, you also need to add a link to it to the main peer review page. Kirill Lokshin 16:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your assistance.Balloonman 16:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Just wanting to let you know that I'm taking a look at the Military brat article. I'll leave my thoughts on the talk page. Mister.Manticore 19:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... I appreciate the review... it's reaching the point where other than copy-editing, I'm not sure what else to do.Balloonman 19:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. Apart from minor grammar editing ('oftentimes' isn't usually written as one word in formal writing) I think it's good. The major point that's already been adjusted is the id of the article as focusing on US brats. The experience of a Soviet child growing up in Eastern Europe or a British kid in BAOR would indeed have major differences!! Good work.Buckshot06 22:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help... grammar and spelling are my weaknesses, so when I see somebody fixing my mistakes, I am always appreciative.Balloonman 22:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
You're doing good, hang in there. In a day or two, if they haven't changed there vote, leave msgs on the talk pages of the remaining objecters if they have remaining concerns and if they'd change their vote. Rlevse 12:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] happy Turkey Day!!!!!

I wish you a very merry Thanksgiving! Hope you and your family have a magnificent day! So, what are you thankful for? Hooray and happy gormandiziŋ! --Randfan please talk talk to me!
Happy Turkeyday! Cheers! :) —Randfan!!
Enlarge
Happy Turkeyday! Cheers! :) —Randfan!!
Have a great day! Please respond on my talk page (the red "fan" link in my signature). Cheers! :) —Randfan!!

Cheers! :) —Randfan!! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

[edit] Military Brat (Krako)

I responded to your message on my Talk Page. --KrakoContribs Talk 16:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lei tai

Thank you for your comments. In regards to the one about the "??? sections", I believe you may need to format your computer to read Chinese font. If you go to the Lei tai page, you will see a gray box below the opening paragraphs that links to a page that shows how to complete the procedure.

Also, I'm afraid there is not enough material to flesh out the "bullet-point" material into separate paragraphs. The "Dimensions" section was provided to show that different sources consider it to be different sizes. (Ghostexorcist 23:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC))

that makes sense...Balloonman 00:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mil brat

Balloonman:

I didn't know I was that well thought of-;) Thanks.

  • Well, I saw your posts on the FAC and thought your suggestions were solid and worth listening to.

Re: Military brat (I'm one!)

  • Ditto... Patch American HS class of 87...

Why is the homosexual bit in there? All it really says is mil brats may not have a lot of contact with homosexuals. Not that big a deal as I see it. It's like saying "living in Florida, someone may not get to experience snowfall". It just doesn't seem relevant to me. Now if it was shown MBs were more or less likely to become homosexuals, then I'd see it as relevant. While these things can be hard to predict, I think it may get beat up on this on a FAC, but maybe not. We'll see.

The Duty, Honor, Country external jump needs to be a wikilink if it has an article or made a footnote.

  • Change made

FN 24 needs to be at the end of the sentence. FNs come after punctuation, not in the middle of a sentence.

  • Somebody else already moved it.

Overall, I think this is very well referenced and written. I fixed some minor things for you.

  • Thank you... the details are where I'm the weakest... I'm a decent writer, but grammar and spelling are my weaknesses...

Fix the refs that have spaces btwn them and the period (or whatever).

  • looks like somebody else did it already... I'll check to see if I see any that were missed.

I'm an MB and I never saw separate Scout troops for O's and E's. Maybe this doesn't occur anymore.

  • Ditto, I'll make this past tense---I remember my dad (who was also a brat and an eagle scout) told me that that there were two troops when he was in scouts.

You have no See also?

  • I had one, but the peer review process said to incorporate the "see also" section into the text, so I killed it.

WHen it's a FAC, the best way to get it through is to respond quickly to feedback.

  • I try to... it's only fair that if somebody takes the time to read what I wrote to respond right away.

I've asked a MILHIST project member to rate it.

  • Cool, I appreciate it...

My suggestion: fix my concerns and then list for FA.

  • Do you think it's ready for FA?

r/ Rlevse 00:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

PS- see User_talk:Rlevse#Military_brat_assessment Rlevse 03:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it's ready for FAC now. When you get FA, the GA tag goes away. I'm a GA reviewer too, so in 2-3 days ping me and I'll GA it as what I just did was the equivalent of a GA review. Nice work. ERcheck, who did some editing on this, is one of my good MILHIST project buddies.Rlevse 08:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
And to think that less than a month ago, when I started working on this article it was nominated for deletion! You should take a look at what was there to begin with hereBalloonman 08:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
You could start the article List of military brats with all that info that got cut.Rlevse 14:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
you mean like: List of famous fictional military brats and List of Famous Military Brats They were in my "See also" which I was told I should kill... and they are now linked in the introductory section.Balloonman 16:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Helping

I offer this in a constructive vein and am glad to see you're trying to improve articles. This is about your on hold of the South African article. I have no problem with it being on hold, but see what you think:

  • 1) It needs more references/citations---particularly in the history section. There were a lot of places that I felt you needed citations. I'll try to go through the article later to note those places.
    • 22 is more refs than some FAs of the same size have, unless a section is short. So asking for more in a section is okay, but I think just saying "it needs more refs" is overdoing it a bit.
  • 2) This article cries out for pictures. The pictures you absolutely have to find are: a-The beeds referenced of Kind Dinizulu, b- the uniform designed by Powell for the police c- the uniform that is now used that is based on b. This article HAS to have pictures!
    • It has pictures. Pictures are nice but not actually required even for an FA. They don't absolutely have to have any. See Wood Badge for pictures of WB beads. No pic exists of the originals that I know of. The police uniform pic would be nice, agreed, but not required.
  • 3) I know this is written in British or possibly S.A. English, but is Learnt the correct spelling? I didn't want to correct it, because I suspect that it's just a linquistical variation, but be forwarned that it looks and sounds very akward for American English speakers.
    • Scouting WikiProject policy is to use the English dialect of the country in question. I should know, I'm the project lead coordinator.
      • Hope this helps and again, I'm trying to be helpful. Rlevse 02:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Rlevse 02:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
No problem, I am open to comments/criticisms/advice as I am still learning... the hold is on there for other reasons as well... I'm currently working on a more detailed review, I just wanted to throw some things out that somebody could start working right away... I agree, I wouldn't stop it from being a GA for just those reasons... but I had some other concerns... I should be done in the next few minutes. again, this is a VERY good article.Balloonman 02:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Faten Hamama

Hi Balloonman. I withdrew the nomination for FA status for the above article. I haven't finished work on the article but Meno25 went ahead and nominated it without asking me. If you have any feedback or advice, you can forward it to me. Thank you and have a nice day. ← ANAS Talk? 09:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: military brat

My pleasure, Balloonman. Anything I can do to help! I'm not totally perfect with the grammar and punctuation of course, so there may be other things I didn't catch, but I fix things when I see they need fixing.

Excellent job on that article, by the way. I never knew there was that much to write about brats. I learned a lot, including why I am the way I am today. It's kinda creepy to see so much of myself there.  :) Nice to meet another brat, by the way! --ScreaminEagle 21:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty, I didn't realize that there was that much either! I decided to make this an FA quality article when it was nominated for deletion less than a month ago and found out how much there was to our common culture/heritage.Balloonman 21:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, you have really impressed me with your perfectionism (it's a trait my wife has, but she hates to review my work for some strange reason ;-) )Anyway, I know that you are opposing the Military Brat article for FA, but I was wondering how close you thought it was? I know you said it needed to be copy edited and had concerns about the references, but beyond that anything else?Balloonman 09:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Several thoughts: the hardest thing to overcome on FA is poor referencing. You've largely surpassed that hurdle, so on that score, the article should make FA - if not this time, at least on a future try. In terms of prose and copyedit issues, I don't consider myself an expert in that area, and I rarely support an article that doesn't have the "blessing" of several of the really good copyeditors on Wikipedia. I suggest that you canvass people who are good copyeditors and try to find someone who will help. Spangineer, Rlevse, Outriggr, Gzkn, Hoary come to mind, or ask for help on the Military WikiProject. I do think it's close — and in far better shape than some articles that get the star because a lot of "fans" come on board to support, in spite of problems. Good luck, Sandy (Talk) 18:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Rlvese was the person who recommended that I bring it to FAC ;=) I had asked him to take a look at it before I nominated it.I will check with the others you mentioned. Thanks for the advice.Balloonman 19:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 13:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Balloonman

From one FAC to another, if you want to have a look at my FAC for Russian Ground Forces and leave a comment, I'd much appreciate it. Regards Buckshot06 22:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for reviewing "Billy Sunday"

I appreciate your comments. I'll get Rocketj4 on those baseball questions, about which I'm totally hopeless.--John Foxe 19:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Rocketj4 has now corrected the baseball stuff, and I think I've fixed everything else you suggested including writing some summary paragraphs at the beginning.
I'm not sure what you meant by the following comment, but I'd be glad to help correct the problem: "I personally don't like how the notes hide the references and external links. I'd like to see them brought to more prominence. But that's a matter of taste I guess." Do you just mean dividing up the footnotes and having more citations per paragraph?--John Foxe 22:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
When I looked at the article, you had the footnotes in two columns. At the end of the second column, embedded with the footnotes, the references and see also could be found. I didn't like how they appeared that way. I'd rather have it Footnotes in two columns. Then a break, then references. Then a break, then see also. Or whatever the proper order is for these categories, but as it was the references/see also were hidden.Balloonman 22:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for promoting the article to GA status. What you see on your screen doesn't appear on mine, but I'll try to fix it. (Unfortunately, I seem to be one of the few on Wikipedia whose computer literacy can often be improved by the advice of seventh-graders. When I'm in computer trouble, IT seems to send up these little kids just to prove the "old dogs-new tricks" proverb.)--John Foxe 11:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


I responded to your baseball questions on the Discussion page of the Billy Sunday article.--Rocketj4 02:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

There is a project. I have tried to move it forward and several people have helped tremendously along the way. I think most of the work will be focused on copyediting from now on, so any help will be greatly appreciated! WikiprojectOWU 20:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Copy editing is my biggest weakness... I am not a good copy editor... Balloonman 20:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • That makes two of us, then. ;-) Let's find someone who will be willing to help us out from previous FA Article candidacies. WikiprojectOWU 23:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Clough Holmes

I have expanded the lead to give a quick summary of Holmes's life. Tell me what you think. Lovelac7 07:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I had already promoted the article to GA... it looks was a good article to begin with, now it's (IMHO) better. Good job.Balloonman 09:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for the comments. I'd take care of some of the suggestions that you brought up. It was kind of annoying to read through a myriad of typos but the comments were generally helpful. WikiprojectOWU 08:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

it's late and I was tired... when I review I'm not focusing on *my* writing ;-) But over all, it's a good article... I hope it passes. But we'll see. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Balloonman (talk • contribs) 09:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
    • Hey, no problem. I totally undersand, it happens to me as well. It does not matter if it passes, at least we will get some feedback and we'll improve it. I like some of the factual suggestions that you brought up. I'll have to do some thinking where to include them. Some of the other suggestions that deal with political matters are more tricky. For example, your point about the Activism section being liberal and the political districts. You are right that most activism that is happening on campus is by people with left leaning politics. If we exclude, the section, we will pretty much say that that it is not important part of life at OWU. And it is, so it becomes POV, not-NPOV. If we do drop it, we have to think how much of campus activism is initiated by Republicans on campus...my guess is not much. So, it is Catch 22 either way.

Overall, very helpful suggestions that give me some food for thought how to make the sentences more clear and to improve the state of the article! WikiprojectOWU 12:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question (not disagreement)

On the Billy Sunday article, your review indicated some POV concern. As you may have noted in the previous discussion about the article, I also had a POV concern. My concern has not been addressed, and I am curious as to whether yours has been. The article as it stands now, which you passed as a Good Article, has only been changed by one phrase in the sections applicable for POV review. Was it only that one phrase that you thought was POV? I don't disagree with the GA selection; the article is well-written and informative. I'm trying to evaluate my own take on this (my own POV perhaps) by learning what Wikipedia reviewers regard as POV. So: what was it in the article that made you say in your review: "Incredible as it may seem--POV??" Thanks for your time.--Rocketj4 13:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you're busy, and that the Billy Sunday article doesn't represent a strong interest of yours. But, if you could spare a few minutes, would you let me know what your original POV questions were in that article? As I said above, on the discussion page for that article, I have a concern that has not been addressed to my satisfaction. If I'm the only one who cares, well then, so be it, and I'll let it rest. But--are you completely satisifed by the small revisions made to achieve to GA status? Thanks for responding.--Rocketj4 21:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this was a busy weekend... I didn't have much time to respond to anything. To answer your question, *I* didn't see too much in the way of POV, but I'm only one person. GA has a lower threshold than many articles and, like you, I'm still learning. It may be that you are correct and it has too much POV... I don't know. What I'm going to do is post a question on the GA Review Talk page and ask somebody else, with more experience to give it a read over, that way we can get somebody with more experience to chime in.Balloonman 16:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military Brat FAC

Although I didn't support it for FA, I want to thank you for writing the article. It is needed. There are a lot of articles on military subculture that need written or need researched. My first contribution to Wikipedia was Kitchen Police. I will add specific comments to the talk page for Military brat to help the article along, in the ways that I disagree with it. You may not agree with my comments, but I hope you consider and are able to include research and information that gives an overall feel for the culture, and a viewpoint that does not focus on the negative aspects. KP Botany 18:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military Brat

Hi Balloonman. I have edited the lead of the article. I have to admit, finding what I would call an "encyclopedic" tone is tough with this topic. Maybe you'll find the changes too drastic... I was going for a lead that follows the guidelines of WP:LEAD. For example, the third paragraph went into details about popular culture, but there is no pop culture section in the article, so it's not exactly doing the "summarizing" that the lead is meant to do. You'll see I commented out some sentences. I'll see how much I can do - it's a slow job - if you want to continue! –Outriggr § 03:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Outrigger... I haven't looked at it yet, but I really appreciate your assistance. As I mentioned above, this is a collaborative process... and I'm learning about the "wiki standards." While I may be the main contributor to the article, other eyes/expertise will make it better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Balloonman (talk • contribs) 04:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
On a similar note, I noticed a "term paper" tone when I first read through it, too. I've been trying to find the time to go back over it and find specific examples of this to remedy, but I haven't been able to yet, hence why I haven't voted for it yet. But I didn't want you to think I'd totally forgotten about this. When does the voting end again? --ScreaminEagle 23:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I think FAC's are open until there is a consensus one way or another, I don't think they have a time limit. Right now I think the consensus is moving towards passing the FAC. I think if Sandy changes her vote to a support that this will pass. One of the two other opposes was from the first day, his concerns were addressed and nobody else has reiterated them. The other oppose I suspect will change to a support as well, he wants this to be an FAC... I think I incorporated enough of his concerns to get him to vote for it. So in otherwords, IF Sandy votes to support, it would not surprise me if it passes in a day or two. She had legitimate objections that until they are addressed her object would be (IMHO) strong enough to have it fail.Balloonman 23:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military brat

Thanks for the message on my talk page. I see no problem with the article now. When it was nominated for deletion it appeared rather poorly sourced, hence my "delete" vote, but this has obviously been remedied since. In fact the article moved from AfD to a Good article and even FA Candidate in quite a short time, good job! -- Ekjon Lok 18:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Let's stay away from the debate on this. In fact, I suggest withdrawing your comment on the page. I think both users have strong arguments and I asked 3 administrators to review the page and tell me what they think. I think we shouldn't politicize the issue because, it will be difficult to reach an agreement that will please all. What do you think? WikiprojectOWU 21:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be in favor of removing all of these responses. I think Fariah's outburst could sink the FAC. Her response wasn't appropriate for an FAC where you're trying to gain respect/trust of others. So, you have my FULL support in deleting everything up to Indrian's objection.Balloonman 21:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Sounds good. Removals are better viewed if initiated from their own editors. WikiprojectOWU 21:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I decided to delete it all... probably overstepped my authority, but I didn't think the response from Faria was appropriate... and that got the ball rolling.Balloonman 22:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

I see your point. I think we shouldn't use politics as an argument against it here. I think historically, most activism comes from progressive-minded people who tend to be liberal. If that's the state of affairs at OWU, we shouldn't change that fact because then we definitely make it POV. Perhaps a broader historical context will improve the section. I've asked a few people around to see how to handle the issue. I don't think it is an easy one and I don't think we should point fingers to either user:Faria or user:Indrian. They both have strong arguments. I think what will help is to be consistent with the current policies of Wikipedia and follow the advice that we get from administrators. Political debates are not uncommon on politically charged topics. WikiprojectOWU 21:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • most activism comes from progressive-minded people who tend to be liberal that's POV. Pro-lifers are definately not liberal, but they are very motivated and activist. There are a number of groups that are activist for their causes that are not liberal. Activism takes many forms, standing on a street corner/marching in a parade are only two forms of activism. But I digress; I think the article will be greatly enhanced if you could show a history of strong activism as compared to a few recent issues of picking and choosing. The article also becomes stronger if you focus on issues that most people can agree to/support or that has had time for wounds to heal. EG activism RE Slavery/Apartheid/gay-rights/anti-Vietnam War/ etc. By presenting current issues with a side, even if the students believe it, it comes across as POV. You don't want the section titled Activism to appear to be a case of activism. I'd pick no more than one or two current issues and use them, get rid of the rest. And then try to flush out the section looking at historical cases.Balloonman 22:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I applaud your removal of the tangent begun by Faria. I almost did so myself rather than respond, but I felt people would see such an action motivated by bias rather than concerns for integrity of the FAC. I am sure you do not want to get bogged down in what has been a constant source of anger and annoyance for me (Faria hurling baseless accusations about my character at me and distorting and even changing what I have said on various issues), but when every time I post a comment about OWU anywhere on wikipedia I am immediately accused by Faria (who has not made any edits on wikipedia not directed towards libelling me in over half a year) of various prejudices and agendas, I have to respond, as my reputation is being damaged. I have never started a row with Faria. She is always the instigator, and it was never my intent to bring our differences to the FAC. That was Faria's decision. I think your idea above is a sound one, as long as everything is referenced. You appear to be a reasonable person, so I do not want you to get trapped by Faria's rhetoric. I am actually liberal myself and am not concerned if the activism section on OWU consists primarily of liberal issues. I am only concerned that the article adequately and neutrally presents the issues it discusses so that a comprehensive picture of activism at OWU results. That does not mean every last group should be discussed or every last angle on an issue be presented, but rather that the article gives an idea of what concerns OWU students. Faria takes this as a slight to activities I suppose must be very close to her heart, but this is only an appeal to wikipedia policies of verifiability, accuracy, and neutrality and not a partisan row. Indrian 23:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I posted a response to your latest comment to me on WikiprojectOWU's talk page. Let me extend my apologies here as well for any inadvertent offense I caused and reiterate that if you do not want me to talk to you about an issue then you should probably not post on my talk page about the issue first (if you already saw the other post, I apologize, but I suddenly realized you might not be keeping track of the other talk page). If you want to respond (I certainly do not feel you need to if you do not want to), I suggest that we continue the conversation here or on my talk page so we are not needlessly spamming WikiprojectOWU's talk page. Indrian 00:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I posted on both your page and Faria's page as kind of a warning. Her attacks against you were simply wrong. I sided with you because I felt that she was out of line. You defended yourself, aggressively, but I couldn't fault you for doing so on the FAC. When you go to other pages to attack her, that's where I believe you are crossing the line. I don't mind talking to you about it, but I do believe that you are perpetuating the problem by continuing the problem elsewhere. Balloonman 01:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Fair enough, that answer makes complete sense. I did not see it as an attack because it is true, but I can certainly see how it would be regarded as one and at the very least could stir up trouble where there was none initially. I reiterate that this was not my intent and offer a complete apology. Indrian 02:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
            • no problem... again, I side with you, but if an outsider observer comes in and sees you going to other pages in response to her atacks, then you are going to been as equally guilty.Balloonman 02:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Balloonman, your work for the Military Brat page is incredible. I, Sharkfae217, am honored to present to you this Tireless Contributor Barnstar for going that extra mile and really make the Military Brat article shine. Sharkface217 00:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Colorado

No, I'm in Maryland right now, but I grew up mostly in Colorado, in Golden (ah, memories of driving past the Coors factory every day and choking on the fumes...good times). In fact, my parents still live there. I had no idea you were a Colorado Boy! Go us! --ScreaminEagle 22:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I may be moving soon...Balloonman 23:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
That's a shame--CO's so nice. Why? (If you don't mind my asking) --ScreaminEagle 23:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm a military brat and your asking? Actually, its because I have a speciality that isn't in demand here... but is in Texas. So my job is pulling me away.Balloonman 00:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAC Scouting

I've put up this FAC, would appreciate input. Rlevse 14:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Will do...Balloonman 16:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
THanks for the support. If you have specific tweaks, please let me know. Rlevse 13:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll take another look at it and see if I can see some specific tweaks. For the most part the guy right above me pegged what I noticed... but there was something about the article that I didn't like, but couldn't put my hand on. It wasn't enough to vote no, so I'll take another look.Balloonman 17:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
When you guys get around to nominating the African Scouting Association, definately let me know... that one was an EXTREMELY interesting read.Balloonman 18:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military Brat FAC withdrawal

Well, there are a lot worse articles hanging on for FAC, and, imo, some that made it to FA. Anyway, I'll keep commenting. It's topical whether you're a brat or not, also. KP Botany 16:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I have little doubt that this article would pass, given time. I think with your support, screamineagle, and the others who have supported it that we could push it through. I get the impression that Sally and Outriggr MIGHT vote weakly to oppose (or not vote at all,) but I don't think they would kill it per se. I just want to make the article a little tighter... I've noticed some things that they pointed out (and you've pointed out) that will make this better. And I want to make those changes and renominate. I DEFINATELY want your input, you've made some EXCELLENT recommendations. (Although I don't completely agree with you that it's negative.)Balloonman 17:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi Balloonman. I came here to mention that I've emailed you. Re the above - I don't presently participate in the FAC system, so you are technically correct that I won't vote at all. :-) That doesn't mean I'm not interested in helping with FAC articles, however. –Outriggr § 05:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User subpage

I have nominated the user subpage which you (probably accidentally) created in the Main namespace (Balloonman/TCK Notes) for deletion - I have noticed its content is now in your User space (User:Balloonman/TCK Notes). Silver Nemesis 20:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

you're right... sorry about that...
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/l/User_talk%7EBalloonman_62b9.html"