I have searched high and low for it, needing it since I suspect an nn-article creator making a sock account to remove the speedy deletion tag: [1]. -WarthogDemon 01:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:SOCK#Tagging---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's embarrassing how I can't find the obvious. Thanks. -WarthogDemon 02:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just transcluded the RfA. Thank you, again, for your generous comments. I am deeply touched. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 02:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in regarding my request. While you have a point about the sequence of appealing to the ArbCom first or going to the community first, I have to point out that I was desysopped in 2006, and until January of this year, when the ArbCom's composition changed, there was no chance that the ArbCom would do anything other than scoff at my request and dismiss it outright, so I didn't bother. Everyking (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you didn't have a choice, the problem is that regardless of the reasons, there have been four RFA's since you were forced out of your position. The community keeps on speaking, whether I agree with or disagree with said position, the fact remains that it has spoken. ArbCOM serves the community, not the other way around, thus when the community has consistently spoken with a specific voice, it is not the perjogative of ArbCOM to overrule the community. Sorry,---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you about the community coming first, but I question whether accepting my request would constitute overruling the community. In both of my recent RfAs, I obtained two-thirds support from the community, and I would almost certainly have cleared 70% if not for the stigma attached the ArbCom desysopping. Everyking (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no problem with the committee issuing a statement that you have served your time and been a benefit to the community---thus alleviating some of the ArbCOM stigma, but I can't support the notion that 14 people will counter the clear consensus of 4 previous RfAs.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Just made a proposal to that effect.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that we have disagreed with each other quite a bit today, but one thing that I was disappointed in was that only about 5 or 6 outside users came into the discussion, and we could get no real community consensus out of the issue. I was wondering if you would be interested in co-sponsoring a Request for Comments on the issue of what latitude bureaucrats should have at individual RfAs, as that should be able to get some solid community consensus one way or the other, and we won't have to pointlessly argue at WT:RfA and WP:BN. I'm quite open to any suggestions you have on the issue, as I really hope this could be solved now once and for all (although of course, it probably won't) so that we won't have to argue about this in the future. Well, back to some research for an article that I didn't do at all today. NW (Talk) 01:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You bureaucrats and admins can discuss this to your heart's content, wherever you like, but you have to face up to the reality that you are not gods. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just sayin'... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, shows how little notice I take of who's an admin and who isn't. I generally tend to assume that the defenders of the wiki are either admins or are preparing themselves for RfA, and I've seen nothing here that persuades me otherwise. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see it now... MF is already sharpening his ballot, "Oppose, NW is a defender of the wiki" ;-)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't see the need. As far as I can see, both this time around and the last time around, the consensus was that 'crats should not strike !votes. I see starting an RfC as creating an issue where one doesn't previously exist.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a new essay DYK Hooks because I think the people who review hooks today don't understand what a hook is supposed to do. For those TPS out there, I would invite you to give me some feed back (and proof read) the first draft.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just one thing: it's bollocks, not bullocks. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, made the change now to bed... hope you liked it... I'm looking for feedback as this was a first draft, basically typing my thoughts out, not really as organized as I usually do.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great essay! I have been working at T:TDYK, and I guess I have kind of fallen away from that. I shall keep this essay at hand when reviewing hooks in the future; it has some very good advice. NW (Talk) 19:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still in rough draft form... it's something I've been thinking about for a while, but haven't given it as much thought as elsewhere... its just that too many of the hooks at DYK aren't hooks, but rather statements of facts. The Why I Hate Speedy Deleter's essay was born of a debate on the subject and the other party, SIS, helped spark thoughts in the essay I hadn't considered.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar! It's easy to do what I do here because I enjoy doing it. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you do... it's always been one of my challenges... English grammar has never been something I excelled out...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you or one of your talk-page stalking admins check to see if my rationale for contesting the speedy deletion tag (A1 of Souvik is correct? I don't deal in these matters much, so a view from someone more knowledgeable in these matters would be valuable. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite correct imho, it clearly says what it's about after all. I see it's been correctly declined by now. Regards SoWhy 19:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed... and DaBomb, I had to look through your edits again... you are a person who should be an admin someday. I just wish there wasn't that recent ArbCOM issue otherwise, I'd nom ya in a second. The article could possibly be A3'd, but with given names, I'm more inclined to leave it. As a given name, there is value in keeping stubs even if only a sentence.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle/Nominations, could you please reformat your entry in the same format as the others? Thank you, Cirt (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will no longer discuss the page until it enters the wikipedia space. I will strongly oppose its entry into wikipedia space if it uses the same language.--William S. Saturn (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that's fine... it may or may not go to the wikispace. But I did respond, I think your view is the reason why hooks have become so blaise and boring. Hooks should have some appeal and 99% of the world knows that the purpose of a hook is first to capture the person and then to inform, not the other way around. Nobody expects the hooks to be completely straight forward and most would not be offended if the hook took advantage of anothers assumptions.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On July 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Southern District of New York Action Against Online Poker Players, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing me with User:Matthewedwards. :P iMatthew ^talk at 01:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

d0H!!! That's what I get for having you on my watchlist ;-)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

;) iMatthew ^talk at 01:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It looks rather weak" but it's a keep? I don't understand. – ukexpat (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion doesn't matter, the consensus of the community was to keep. *I* might not have gone that way, but my position wasn't strong enough to differ with the community. (Heck, my position on this isn't strong enough to !voting to delete.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't consider relisting? 2 keep !votes vs 1 delete is hardly "consensus of the community". Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I considered it, but decided to keep anyway... I'll take a second look at it this evening after I get off work.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in here: While I don't see anything particularly wrong with Balloonman's decision, personally I would have relisted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

will look at after kids are in bed---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Took a closer look and stand by the original close, I elaborated on the AFD as to why.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Balloonman. I recently came across your declined RFA nom of Dabomb87. I was going to nominate it for speedy deletion under G6, but I thought I'd talk to you about it instead, as you're the nominator. As I understand it, declined RFA noms can be deleted as "uncontroversial maintenance". You can go ahead and delete it unless you have some reason to keep it. Thanks. Timmeh 00:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deleted---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is quite a fun turn of events. I sincerely hope that no one ever accuses you of dealing a joker into the game! :) Thank you, again, for making this happen -- this was a very entertaining process, and I am looking forward to this new chapter of my Wikipedia adventures. Peace be with you! Pastor Theo (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did it lose some of your edits? iMatthew ^talk at 02:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't have, why?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a request at WP:CHU/U. Rlevse then told me that if you have over 5k edits (I have 15k), it may lose some of your edits while you are being re-named. iMatthew ^talk at 02:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a possibility, as in it has happened before, but there should be no problem. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Art LaPella (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Ageism, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Ageism and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Ageism during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. fr33kman ^-simpleWP- 21:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

27 minutes between nomination and withdrawal of said nomination.... hmmmm---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I felt it was better in the long run. Sorry if any offense was caused. Take care! :) fr33kman ^-simpleWP- 23:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kids today, eh? You've gotta laugh. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Jimbo Finds Me Offensive Barnstar of Infamy
		You have disagreed with Jimbo, and Jimbo ain't happy. What's even worse is that you haven't apologized to Jimbo, this makes Jimbo mad. Never stare a mad Jimbo in the eyes as it usually results in a desysopping. The Jimbo can now only be placated with a WikiLove template on his talkpage, accompanied by decorous praise. – iridescent 23:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Thanks to the now-departed User:RHMED for this design

ROFLMAO!!!! Absolutely made my night, and I'm not feeling well tonight so that's saying something!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freekman, if you have suggestions on how to improve it, I am open to them. I just added a nutshell to the essay to try to help others read it the way it is intended to be read. The entire purpose of the essay it to kill all of the wasted debates we've had on the subject over the past two years. The focus should not be the meta debate of ageism, but rather what the individual brings to the table---and that is the entire point of the essay.

The reason why Julian is having a problem with Ageism, is more a factor of the vocal stance he's taken over the subject than his actual age. (We just promoted another underage admin to 'crat.) The problem Julian has is that he is the admin that I quoted in the essay who compared ageism to racism. And that was not an isolated occurrence, he made that claim on several occassions. I decided to support him, but even when I supported him I knew that this issue would kill his RfA. He's been too vocal (in a manner that is offensive to women and minorities.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll get back to you in the next couple of days. I do get what you're trying to say with it. For reference, btw, I'm in my forties. All the best! :) fr33kman ^-simpleWP- 02:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the comments that I feel would help the essay. Thanks for inviting me. Regards fr33kman ^-simpleWP- 21:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions in helping me make the articles better! I will follow all of them, and if you have any others, be sure to let me know! Mandermagic (talk) 23:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NP it is just one of the things we are trying to do when updating the poker articles, that way people know when the list is accurate as of. I personally hate the user boxes without that key piece of info because it may be accurate or way outdated, you never know.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your AFD closes are mis-formatted such as this one (I fixed it). You're putting the header in the wrong place. May I suggest this script. It makes closing and relisting a lot easier. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BM, I strongly believe that Sandy should have admin rights. She has looked after FAC, FAR and more (including me) for a very long time—and admirably IMHO. I suspect, but I might be wrong, that she does want to run the gauntlet of WP:RfA because—well let's face it—this can be an unpleasant experience. Surely there must be a short-cut to admin status for such a fine contributor? Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No there isn't, and ironically the more content work you've done the less you'll be to be able to pass RfA. Personally I'd like to see SandyG at RfA, just to see the shitstorm, but for her sake I hope she never does. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus my friend, are you certain? I reckon Jimbo could be persuaded very quickly—all it would take is one click of his mouse. And, far from a storm of faeces, I envisage manna from heaven should she go for it. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certain of only one thing. If Jimbo did that all Hell would break loose. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Malleus, 'twas just a thought. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to see her run for 'crat and kill two birds in one stone, but it ain't gonna happen... she has zero interest in it whatsoever. She has had more offers at nominations than most people get !votes.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not!  :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off with their heads!!!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to watch this RFA, as it is close to snowballing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The candidate would prefer to keep it open. Cheers, Amalthea 16:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I had known that technique at my last RFA. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting that it be kept open is something they can request... but is not always granted. Generally, if the user is active and established, the request is honored. If the user is a relative newby, it's usually closed anyways.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On July 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Town of Mt. Pleasant v. Chimento, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On July 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dominant Factor Test, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On July 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman 00:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I know that it hasn't been a month yet, but I was wondering if you could possibly tell me whether or not you think that I should wait another month before throwing my hat into the AFD ring. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a long wikibreak... there are a few things that I'm cleaning up/clearing out (namely writing a few more articles), but right now I honestly don't want to take the time. I am taking a break primarily from the politics/drama.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand. I sympathize with you as it really can be a pain in a butt here. Thank you for the response. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How great are you at writing nomination statements? Xeno is willing to co-nominate me, but he would like someone to write it as he says that he isn't that great of a nomination write. If you'd be willing to nominate me, I would be forever grateful to you. If you are unable to do so, would you at least be willing to co-nominate me? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I have no desire to nominate anybody for adminship... I don't have the energy or desire to look through a potential candidate's history, thus, unless I already know them I probably won't be nomming anybody in the near future. Xeno can, however, take a look at my essay How to nominate somebody for RfA for my thoughts on how to write a good nom.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you're awesome. Thanks a ton there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All this discussion of your upcoming RfA looks suspiciously like canvassing to me. Admittedly I think that the canvassing policy is a piece of ill-considered shit, but ... --Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless he is contacting numerous people, seeking guidance on a possible RfA---particularly from somebody seen as an "expert" on the subject---generally would not be deemed as canvassing.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posting "I'm going for RfA" on high-profile talk pages is canvassing whichever way you choose to cut it. Personally I see nothing wrong with canvasssing, and I think wikipedia's policy is daft, but I also think that the same rules ought to apply to everyone. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only time where CANVAS bothers me is when somebody isn't getting their way and then goes in search of a supportive voice... and does so in a manner that says, "I expect you to support my position because those who oppose me are idiots" then I don't really care. Let's face it, CANVAS at RfAs happen all the time. Let's say you are running for admin... Ottava puts in a support. If I wanted to support your RfA, I goto his page and leave a note "RE your !vote at Malleus' RfA." Doing so, I know that people who are of a similar mind might see the comments and come a running. Similarly, if I wanted to attract the attention of people who I think will oppose, I simply go to one of your favorite Admins and post "per your !vote at Malleus RfA." It's only a problem, IMO, when you are advocating a position when you are seeking help.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am in no way trying to canvass my RFA. The only other person here who knows that I am running is Xeno. I don't like the idea of canvassing as it will come back to haunt me later on. I also never am one to seek the support of others. I know that I am posting on a high profile talk page, but notice that I'm not writing in neon green or big letters. There are many ways to advertise an RFA, but I don't believe in using any of them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nor did you come to my page necessarily expecting me to support... I mean, last time I reviewed you, I gave you a firm---not yet and we haven't had any person interactions wherein I would necessarily be deemed a "friendly" voice ;-)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I will now that you mention it. Do you know of any editors who might be willing to look at someone for nomination? Xeno is really unconfident with with nominating me, so I was wondering if you knew someone who might be able to do so. There is one person that I have in mind, but he isn't an administrator. I don't know if I should ask him because I doubt that he has all the foreknowledge that you and Xeno have, but he is someone that I have worked with before. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While there are a few people who are better known for vetting candidates than others, who nominates you isn't the most crucial thing. I think you are generally better off having somebody who knows you and is familiar with your work than going with somebody who doesn't know you.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates don't need to be vetted, they need to be certified. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to forgive my hollow laugh Balloonman.[2] --Malleus Fatuorum 13:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it's you ;-) But no, in all seriousness, I have never seen a "pre-rfa" inquiry being deemed as Canvassing.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, you are welcome to co-nominate me if you'd like. Thanks for all the support again. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I haven't looked at your edits recently and the only thing that I know is that when I looked at them a month or two ago, I didn't think you were ready. I wish you the best, but I don't plan on looking through them now to see if you've addressed my concerns.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus has brought to the attention of the RFA this prior discussion. I'm providing a link there as I feel that it is unjust to make it seem like I came begging to you. We had a discussion and I thought that we had buried the hatchet. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mr. B. If you are still checking your messages, I hope you enjoy your time off. I can understand some of the frustration you are facing in regard to Wikipedia -- you would think the place would qualify for the Tony Awards in view of the drama that goes on -- but don't forget there are many people here who have a great deal of positive energy to share. I hope to see you in the near future! Peace be with you! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still doing some editing on articles... there are few articles I want to write, but I'm avoiding anything contentious... hoping that I might get rejuvenated by doing something else.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You seem to be onwiki at the moment and you are still included in the list of admins who will userfy deleted articles.

Could you userfy the following for me. I would like to try to recreate them:

• Ethel Waite Owen
• Mary Barbara Bailey
• Jaroslaw Bilaniuk
• Agi Donath

Thanks, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had to check you out to make sure I wasn't restoring articles for a banned user ;-) But I went ahead and restored all four of the pages. They are on one subpage so you'll have to break them apart, but you can find them here---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]