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.

/archive_1

Contents

[edit] Feedback

I left you some feedback yesterday for your article. Yesterday, I also nominated my first FAC. If you have time leave some feedback at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 18:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

I'll take a look at it, I'm an occassional FAC reviewer as I'm trying to get this article to FAC status. Your comments were GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREAT!!! Wow, that wasn't intended, but in light of your name, that's kinda humerous ;-) Balloonman 18:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  :)

Truth be told, it was actually pretty random. :-) I got tired of getting the messages about a role account. LaSaltarella 07:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • How is it going? I am finishing up the work on the OWU article. Everybody seems to be happy with the progress but I am in no hurry. What have you been working on? LaSaltarella 22:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Packing. I'm in the process of getting ready to move to Houston on Wednesday... and haven't had time to look at much of anything... pretty much all I'm doing on WIKI right now is checking to make sure nobody has left me any messages and that nobody has vandalized an article I'm watching... I have been noticing the positive reviews of OWU on your page and the OWU page... I want to take a look at it, but I just haven't had a chance... I'll probably print your OWU article to read it on my tripBalloonman 08:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you! I want to ask you for a favor. Can you look at Template:Ohio_Wesleyan_University and [[1]]. Tell me which one you like better or if you have any suggestions? LaSaltarella 01:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Will do this weekend... I am on a business trip right now and won't have permanent access until this weekend...Balloonman 23:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
          • I do, too. For the same reasons that you mentioned. Plus I tried to include red and black in it for the obvious reasons. The problem is when I asked the two editors from the copy editing league, the said that they preferred the older one. Maybe I should put it to vote and see what most people have to say. What do you think? LaSaltarella 07:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
            • They may be slightly more "neutral" but if those who look at the cites like the newer one, I'd go with the newer version... the "copy editing league editors" don't have to live with it (EG they aren't paying any attention to it.)Balloonman 07:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brat

Just had a quick look - what happened to the fabulous lead you had a few weeks ago? It's grown way too long, and it's overreferenced. Except for extraordinary claims, references should be in the body of the article, which should be summarized in the lead. Have a look at WP:LEAD - it was better before. It looks now like you're trying to prove something in the lead - the lead should be a stand-alone summary of the article, simple, compelling.

Also unclear what you're doing with the "unknown" references.

Another thing to keep in mind; every single footnote doesn't have to be listed in the References section If you're only quoting a dictionary entry once, just put that directly into the footonte, and leave it out of References. References is for *main* references or sources that are used over and over - sources used only once or twice can just be listed directly in the Footnotes - the reader doesn't need to look two places to see a simple dictionary ref. Will check more later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback... I went back and found an older version of the intro and modified it... I didn't realize that you thought I had a fabulous lead... I thought you were going to criticize it for being too short ;-) Balloonman 08:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't remember which version I liked, but I know I really liked the lead at some point. Hey, I've got a lot of pending travel coming up, and will have sporadic internet access, so my responses over the next few months won't be as quick as usual - just to let you know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh for gosh sakes, someone put an unreferenced tag at Military brat; I'm sure you can fix it with a few sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot. If you ever get a free minute here on Wikipedia, I would be most honored if you wrote a critique of my contributions at my Editor Review, found here. Thanks in advance dude. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How goes the Brat?

How is your work with Military Brat going? S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 04:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Been on a break for a while while moving, but now I've got internet connection and will probably nominate it for FAC this weekendBalloonman 05:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Nominated military brat for FAC... feel free to join in the coversation.Balloonman 09:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I read it on the plane on my recent trip - I guess I should have left you a message sooner, but I didn't expect you to return and nominate it so fast without first checking in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brat

I'll try to make some more comments soon.

The class thing is difficult. No, you shouldn't use awkward or neologistic terms ("rankism") that aren't in the literature, but class and rank do need to be held seperate. Rank can be constructed as an explicitly anti-class structure: s/he is your superior officer regardless of family background, race, etc. In the British Empire, the enlisted/officer division was an outcome of class (commissions could be purchased, AFAIK, and the country was notoriously classist to begin with); in the American military, I'd suggest it's a shibboleth that class (in the typical sense) is supposed to have nothing to do with rank.

Anyhow, your changes address this. Marskell 08:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... it was a good criticism, I wasn't sure if the edits handled it or not...Balloonman 08:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to think my youth hasn't quite ended :). But no, the travel wasn't done with parents so I wouldn't qualify as a TCK. I did live a year in London at 19, but under my own steam. And there are other commonalities: I am definitely an expatriot (also not our best page) at this point and don't actually have a home in Canada. It's a big world, so I don't mind it... Marskell 09:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

Hi Balloonman,

I noticed your comment on the page that I worked on yesterday. Do you have any suggestions for improvements? I tried to make it comprehensive in topics and time, so I don't think there should be POV concerns but your opinion can always be improve the article. LaSaltarella 05:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at the article this weekend... the comment was made more as an FYI because I thought it might be something worth investigating... and you could probably get the details fairly easily.Balloonman 05:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I appreciate it. Your opinion should help me improve the article tremendously. I think it is already well-referenced and comprehensive. Did you move to the new place already? LaSaltarella 19:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Activism article

Wow, thanks for the comments! Very helpful! I will spend some time in the next few days and weeks addressing your concerns. LaSaltarella 22:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Another thing while I am here, could you move your comments to the formal Peer Review page? It will be easier for me to have them in a centralized place when I address them because other editors can/might leave comments on the PR page. LaSaltarella 22:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Awesome! You left me with a lot of homework. I will try to address your concerns. LaSaltarella 22:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reading over Brat

Hey BM,

I've been waiting for some free time to go over the Brat article again before I comment on the FAC. A couple of things hit me right in the opening section that I'm hoping you could explain for me. One thing, not every military brat has traveled the world (other than Viet Nam, my dad was stationed stateside his entire career--the USAF is great that way), but of course has at least traveled the U.S. So perhaps clarify that most or almost all are world travelers, etc. Also, this phrase confused me: "Military brats are typically highly educated, outgoing, and patriotic. They are raised in a culture that emphasizes loyalty, honesty, discipline, and responsibility. Sometimes these values are so strong in an individual that they cease to be virtues and become weaknesses." How can patriotism, education, honesty, etc. become weaknesses? By definition they are positive virtues, are they not? That whole thing doesn't make sense to me. It next states that they feel like outsiders, but those virtues you listed should not be the cause. If you're speaking about different qualities than those I mentioned, then some sentences need to be moved around to make that more clear. Also, you end by saying, "This subculture cuts across other cultural identities." OK? That kinda just drops off the cliff there with no further explanation and apparently no reason for even being there in the first place. It seems completely random, tacked-on; it makes it almost sound like what you'd find in a dictionary rather than an encyclopedic entry. I would rewrite some of these for you instead of complaining, but I'm not really sure where you want to go with these so I'm asking first. --ScreaminEagle 21:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Patriotism is a positive for most people---especially those raised in the military community. But absolute patriotism, wherein the government can do no wrong can be a weakness. Education, can become such an overriding factor that people cease to relate. Honesty, ever hear of too much honesty? Yes, I highly treasure my patriotism/honesty/education, but they can be embraced so strongly that they cease to be virtues.
As for travelling the world, the studies I've seen show that between 80-95% of brats have lived overseas.
As for feeling like outsiders, you are a military brat, how important is patriotism to you? How important is it to those around you? What about honesty? The virtues mentioned are not indicative of feeling like part of the group.Balloonman 04:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's my point. The fact that you had to explain exactly what you meant perhaps suggests that a better explanation be provided than simply stating that these values can sometimes become weaknesses. The values-turned-weaknesses you're speaking of aren't readily obvious to readers who have not done the same research you have and that needs to be dealt with. (I realize you're getting it from all angles while the article is under scrutiny right now, but I am trying point out areas where the article can be improved and more easily read by non-brats.) Not everyone would think that brats, above all others, go to absolute extremes with these values (not just "strong values," which to most, are still considered a positive); you've only stated that sometimes the values turn to weaknesses, but not really how. I didn't find anything later in the article to suggest the answer to that either, so it should be answered better than it is now, preferrably where it was first mentioned. Strong values still suggests a positive--you need to put a negative word in there if you're suggesting a negative result. It would clear up some confusion.
And yes, I know the majority of brats have lived overseas, but not all of them--the sentence in the opening suggests all of them have. I was suggesting the sentence be changed to reflect the fact that most of them have lived overseas, not all of them.
My other concern was not about feeling like an outsider--I think that point has been well established and I was not questioning it. What I was asking was exactly how their values make them feel like outsiders (personally, I went to schools where most of my friends were highly educated, honest, disciplined people). Now, extreme values...that's something different.
And I still have a concern about that last sentence, about it cutting across other cultural identities. Could there be another sentence added to make that not seem like such an orphaned statement? It seems as if it was added out of obligation, not as part of the actual article. It doesn't seem to fit, especially given the information it's being thrown in with. It seems very out-of-text. --ScreaminEagle 20:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 13:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats!

On getting Military brat (U.S. subculture) as a featured article. Just noticed it! Somebody wants to merge it with just Military brat though. --AW 07:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I wasn't expecting that... I thought it was going to fail... I've been working 16-20 hours per day for the past 3 weeks!!!Balloonman 15:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: on the importance of gender equality

Dear Balloonman,

Just for the record, I wanted to say that your last edit was gender-insensitive and I am not sure how to interpret it. That a school has only white males appointed as presidents is worth-noting. The media seems to find it newsworthy when a strong female U.S. presidential candidate runs and when a woman becomes the president of Harvard University. Somehow, in a society still full with a lot of gender disparity, people find it relevant. I am not sure what to say after having seen such a comment. LaSaltarella 07:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

And I disagree it is not notable. The reality of the situation is that virtually all presidents of four year colleges/universities are going to be white males. Is it a shame that is the case? Yes, but is it worth going out of the way to mention? No. Do other schools, such as the University of Oklahoma which has only had white males as its president make a point of it? Does Ohio University's page mention that it has only had males as it's president? Did it highlight the fact that it's current president was the first black president? No. Does OSU's main page mention that Karen Holbrook is their first female president and that they have never had a non-white president? No. Here's a challenge for you, find me another wikipage for a college or university that goes out of it's way to say "we've never had a non-white male" as our president. Inclusion here is POV; is it a shame that there aren't more minority presidents out there? Yes. Is it newsworthy in an individual institutions article? No.Balloonman 08:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
RE your edits since I wrote my response, the media does find it noteworthy when a person becomes president of Harvard (one of the most prestigious schools in the country) or a woman runs for president. But that doesn't mean that every school that hasn't had a person of color or a woman as president should mention it. Most schools haven't---again, I challenge you to find another school's page that mentions that fact.Balloonman 08:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Dear Balloonman, thank you for the response! I appreciate your candidness! It is a valuable perspective that you provide and other people may choose to agree or disagree with it. I am not sure it will be productive for me to engage in this discussion further. Have a good night! LaSaltarella 08:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAC Maximus Confessor

There has been a great deal of improvement on the FAC Maximus. Please have a look at the article and see if it now meets the Featured Article criteria. Thanks for your comments, I think they have helped to make for a better article. -- Pastordavid 15:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and comments on the FAC for Maximus the Confessor. The discussion has closed, and the article has been promoted to Featured Article status. I think the article was greatly improved through the comments and suggestions offered in the nomination process, and was happy to see the process work so well. Again, thanks. -- Pastordavid 19:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Campbell's Soup Cans FAC2

How is Military brat (U.S. subculture) progressing? You were fairly vocal in FAC1 and have not chimed in on FAC2. Your comments and hopefully support are welcome. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for the comment that you left on my Talk page! I wasn't surprised that the article passed. Having said that, I should acknowledge that it was the League of Copyeditors that did most of the hard work in the beginning of the year. Your comments definitely helped me to improve the article. Thank you again! LaSaltarella 05:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

like I said, I had a few concerns, but once those were addressed I was gonna vote for it... only it passed first ;0Balloonman 23:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boy Scouts FAC

RE Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boy Scouts (Boy Scouts of America), what is your suggestion for the layout on law, motto, etc? I really can't think of anything else.Rlevse 15:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've given this some thought. I REALLY don't like the way things are. So here are the ideas that I had. First, you could make it into two columns, this would consolodate the area---but I don't like this idea. The solution that I think I like the best would be to reduce the section to a short statement about how the Law, Oath, Motto, Outdoor Code, are pillars for scouting. Then, rather than listing the items back to back to back, use them similar to the way pictures aer used to break up the article as a whole. Perhaps give them a different font/sizing/etc.Balloonman 03:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
take a look now.Rlevse 22:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Much better... but now the section where they were needs to be cleaned up some... it's not elegant prose.Balloonman 22:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Try now.Rlevse 22:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Sources are not only from BSA, in fact, most aren't. Ex, USSP is not a BSA entity.Rlevse 09:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Campbell's Soup Cans FAC2

Previously you stated support at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans if Fair use could be resolved. Fair use issues have been resolved and debate has been reset. I would appreciate confirmation of your support. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 18:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/l/User_talk%7EBalloonman_62b9.html"