On August 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article November Nine, 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.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 02:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I recently started a discussion about nominating featured lists for the main page, and wanted to know if perhaps you would consider contributing to the discussion happening there. ---kilbad (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On August 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2009 World Series of Poker results, 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) 14:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The 50 DYK Medal
		I hereby award you the 50 DYK medal for the great work and tireless devotion to DYK especially Poker related articles. Keep up the good work and may the next 50 be as fine. Congratulations on fifty DYKs. Caspian blue15:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danke---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered you on my talk page. I hope you don't mind me informing you of the fact. Regards. Fribbler (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mind, it's not necessary as I watchlist people I contact, but it's never a fallacy to notify people ;-)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be sure. RfAs do get us candidates ruffled. ;-) Fribbler (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize in advance if I'm bothering you in any way, but, seeing how you were the driving force in opposition to my RfA (to which I bear no grudge against), I would really appreciate it if you could do a quick review for me at WP:ER, namely Wikipedia:Editor_review/ImperatorExercitus_(2). Of course, you don't have to do it, but, again, I would really appreciate it. Thanks for your time, I'^mperator 13:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to do so over the weekend... I'm more or less pulling back from WP, but since we have this history, I'll try to get to ya.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh...thanks a ton. Sorry for "tugging" you back :P Cheers, I'^mperator 15:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

/me slowly nudges Balloonman to ER. Cheers, I'^mperator 22:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will try... I just can't get excited about WP any more... my tolerance for the garbage here has reached its peak.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The July 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) 18:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Please see the comment I left on Legally Blonde (musical) cast lists deletion page. Hopefully you can see the reasoning Mark E (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize my mistake there and am truly sorry. I was in a mode of closing some of them, and I forgot that a bureaucrat needed to close it. That was a regrettable mistake. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across this from Friday, which makes it pretty clear he ignored your advice on his RFC. While the first part of his comment is debatable, the last sentence was completely unneeded and thoughtless, and is precisely the sort of behaviour I find problematic, but he doesn't seem to understand why his sour attitude is a problem. I left him a note on his talk page, if you want to join in there. Majorly talk 18:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above article is under review. Will you be active enough to handle the concerns that may come up during my review? Please answer on my talk page.--WillC 02:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm placing the article on hold. You got a week to fix the problems.--WillC 03:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to work on it this weekend... my work during the week is now more or less cosmetics...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, take your time. I forgot I was reviewing it anyway.--WillC 03:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Will, I just can't get motivated to make those changes... I've been pulling away from WP for a while, and just can't get up the energy. (Perhaps if the article had been reviewed earlier, I would have, but it sat at GAC for so long that I actually forgot it was there!)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its cool. I'll notify the poker project and see if anyone there is willing to make the fixes. Sad to see another working editor go though. Hope you return in the future.--WillC 16:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read it and answered you. Hope i did answer your question. If not can you please clarify. Thanks --Gian (talk) 05:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On August 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kids Are People Too!, 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.

NW (Talk) 17:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion here about one of your hooks that you might be interested in commenting in. Regards, NW (Talk) 21:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... I personally like the hook and fully expect the article to be one of the most viewed articles of the day.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I liked it, as well, and you were right on the money. Something short and entertaining always tends to catch the eye. :) Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 03:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Anne Fitch, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Fitch. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. SilkTork *^YES! 00:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, while I do think she has the notablity, it is hard to substantiate... I am a little surprised it lasted this long. (It and one other article I've written I've kind of expected to be nominated for deletion.) I do want to thank you... it is common courtesy to do so, but too often people fail in making this effort.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant no offense in requesting the move. I wanted to see if there was any consensus to do so, since I don't presume to be the arbiter of what pages go where. Syrthiss (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was the straw that broke the camels back, but if you look back even to this morning, there was a note saying that I was on a long wikibreak... which was a precursor to a possible retirement. I'm just tired of this place, who knows I might come back, but for now... ciao.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty. Good travels. Syrthiss (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Part of was also the GAC review above... I didn't look at the actual review, but I couldn't get motivated to look at it over the weekend... which meant that I was kind of predisposed to retirement already. If my heart was here, I would have edited that article over the weekend and gotten into shape. So, when I say straw, I do mean straw, it wouldn't have taken much to get me to retire. I say this because I don't want you to think it was you... there was a lot building towards this.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I got that theme. :) I did the same thing a few years ago, under similar load of multiple things bugging me and other interests elsewhere. Syrthiss (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmpf, I'm sad to see that. I had hoped that with your recent article creation spree you unwatched the "garbage" parts and rediscovered the (for you) joyful things to do here.
Cheers, happy retirement, and here's hoping you don't disappear completely. Amalthea 18:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I'm still owing you an article ... :\

Hello. I feel the comment you made about my question on MZMcBride 3's RFA was unnecessary. As an admin he may well be in an argument with another user and I am curious as to whether he would ever be tempted to use his admin powers to force his point. Also, for closing AFDs he will have to decide what weight he puts on each answer and I thought this might have been an interesting scenario to put it in, but now the chances of it being answered are slim. I actually asked this because I was considering changing my position, but that's gone out the window. Oh well... Alan16 (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That question was a question about his RfA. I would have no problem with your posing hypothetical questions about other people's RfA's, but as a candidate weighing in on how he would act here was inappropriate. If an admin weighed in on an AFD, then they are viewed to be disqualified from closing it. If a crat weights in on an RfA, then they are viewed to be disqualified from closing it. By asking him about HIS RfA now, while it is ongoing is tacky and poison's the well. In America (and I say that only because I don't know where you are located, not to be potentially derogatory) we have a concept of the fifth amendment, wherein one is not obligated to answer questions that could incriminate themselves. Answering this question is a lose lose... if he answers that he would pass it, he'll get opposed. If he answers that he would fail it, then he's certain to fail. Heck, IMO it would be an act of hubris for somebody to make the statement, "This is how the 'crats should close this." Do I have thoughts one way or another? Yes, but I won't share them until the RfA is over.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting idea. But in their current state, at least some of the RfA's are pretty obvious about who the candidate was ... e.g. most crat hopefuls probably know that Davemeistermoab's RfA closed as 67, so the percentage alone will be a giveaway. And there are other clues such as the nominator's sig being still in Juliancolton's preferred font style, and the candidate signing as "Dave" in various places. Do you plan to further anonymize the RfA's, perhaps to the point where they are not clearly based on any single real RfA? (I notice this is under MBisanz's userspace but has you as the creator so I assume this is a collaborative effort, and I can help if I can be helpful.) -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went and made a minor edit to RfBCandidate3, where it looks like all instances of "ed" had been replaced with "RfBCandidate3", even within words, resulting in things like "WikipRfBCandidate3ia". If I find other major errors on other pages I'll fix them too, but other than that I'll let them be. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No... there is no way to get rid of all the 'clues' like I said, there is no way to get rid of everything that identifies a candidate. As for Davemeistermoab... just because the RfA was 67% doesn't necessarily mean that it was Dave's. Yes, some people may put two and two together, but not everybody will. More people are more likely to know about the DMHO fiasco, but still there will be some who don't and the further away from the incident the fewer people will know it. You are welcome to change cases where you think you can make it less obvious... like the Dave should be changed.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Balloons! I see you're editing so I'd like to get an Expert Opinion if I could. I came across What if? death note whilst on NPP. I was pondering what to do with it when it was tagged A7 and deleted accordingly. My Q: the article was about a Creative Work, albeit one hosted on a Website (fanfiction.net). As a creative work, I would have declined the SD as A7 not being applicable. But the Web Content piece had me pondering. I suspect that its being hosted on a web site does not detract from the work being a Creative Work, as the hosting is incidental to the article, thus A7 still notbeing appropriate. What are your thoughts on this particular SD? Thanks! Arakunem^Talk 21:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with it. While it is may be a creative work, it is hosted on a website and websites are subject to A7. Eventhough it is a creative work, websites can be self published. Heck, a self published book has more credence than some websites. Thus, being a creative work is not a means to avoid the part of A7 dealing with websites.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! Arakunem^Talk 21:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reading your essay Wikipedia:Why I hate Speedy Deleters, I was reminded of two very recent articles... one I found at AfD and the other I untagged as improvable. Since no one was up for it, I myself took the garbled beginnings and created two decent articles. THIS became THIS.... and THIS became THIS. Now while both are still at AfD, I expect the improvements to result in a keep... and the nominator himself had been extremely courteous and helpful. The author of the original one-sentence and quite garbled stubs has yet to return to his work... and I sure wish he had started in a sandbox. I respect the prodders for tagging something that seemed so obvuiously unimprovable... but I am a believer in wiki-love... and enjoy the challenge of turning a sow's ear into a silk purse. I offer these as examples of what might be possible if one looks beyond the bare bones beginnings. Munchie Strikes Back was prodded an hour and 4 minutes after being created... but New Concorde sat for nearly 8 hours before being prodded. I suppose each case must be considered on its own merits. Good excersize. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if I may hijack this to invite you to read over User_talk:GTBacchus#Deletion_musings, which is the primordial soup of an idea which will look at limiting AfDs of newbie work or potentially improvable work. It is possible that this could eventually be extended to CSDs... Fritzpoll (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder who that person might be... ;) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not me... I don't prewatch RfA/RfB's. But knowing Sandy, it would not surprise me at all if she was watching it to head it off at the pass before it became live!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, odd. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The August 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) 19:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal seems to be the first on the RfA talk page not turned away on the spot in a long time. Maybe you should move the proposal to Wikipedia:Admin coaching with tools or something similar and let the proposal be looked at off of the cluttered talk page? iMatthew ^talk at 21:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking about writing up a more formal proposal this evening, but I first wanted to get more feedback on the idea... a few hours is not enough to guage the plausibility of the issue.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!}

I'm interested to see the formal proposal. I'm still digesting the idea, but I think it could be a good one, with some refinement. One question that comes to mind, though, is whether the coach has complete and full discretion to request that the coachee's tools be removed. If this is the case, then the coach potentially has the power to bar the coachee from a successful RFA for quite some time. I can easily see many RFA opposers with the rationale of something like, "Oppose, Highly-Respected and Vaunted Admin XYZ took away your tools." However, on the other hand, perhaps if the aforementioned coach removed the tools, maybe the coachee failing the RFA would be a good thing. I'm still mulling it over, but I am thinking that perhaps some refinement in the process of removing the tools could be necessary. Useight (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my proposal, the coachee would be working under the coach. The coach inherents some of the responsibility for making sure the coachee's actions are proper. Thus, if you accept a coach, that coach would have the right to take away your tools if he didn't want that responsibility any more. This would become a self correcting system, as the person who yanks the tools frequently wouldn't be given new coachees nor would new coachees seek them out. Others would be able to request the tools be removed, but I would picture them working with the coach/coachee first and only making the request if the problems are not addressed.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. I hadn't thought of that point. The system would be self-correcting in that regard. Useight (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering why Joachim_Cronman was deleted. Not only was a consensus not made, but it was closed 3 days after it was opened, rather than the normal 7 days. I can expand on why it wasn't in good faith--the nominator has nominated ~8 articles that a particular editor has made (it is on the admin noticeboard currently). I ask you to re-evaulate your deletion of the page. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always willing to reconsider... but you need to give me a reason. Can you expand the article? Will you? Is there more to the story than the fact that he was a colonel of the Swedish Army that was killed during a war? This is in no means a claim to importance/significance. Wikipedia is NOT a geneological repositoire, thus, unless there is a substantiated reason to have his family tree, that is all irrelevant. The nom may (or may not) have been a bad faith nom, BUT the article itself makes no viable to claims to importance/significance. This particular case is an A7 candidate and the fact that nobody has made any effort to make any effort to actually enhance the article... and both keeps were not countering the rationale provided by Drawn Some. If you want me to userfy it, I'm very open to that.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Give me a reason why this guy is significant or why his heritage is important, and I'll readily reverse myself. As it exists...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I'm looking, I would change my vote to delete, since I can't seem to find any good non wiki sources. But in any case, the AFD should have lasted the normal amount of time. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can agree to disagree on that... this guy is not notable and the article does not make a claim to notability.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant work creating Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Coaching_with_Tools especially as you did it on the fly. Please dont go back into retirement! FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about when User:Coaching with Tools wants to run for RFA? –xeno^talk 18:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Joachim_Cronman. 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. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice from the top of your talk page that you consider yourself retired, but I still see you actively contributing here and there. Do you consider yourself in semi-retirement or full retirement? Merely curious :) Hope things are well! Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  15:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I consider myself to be retired, but if this coaching with tools idea comes to fruition, it might pull me out of retirement... I'm a teacher at heart.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know such an idea was under serious consideration, is there a page you can direct me to? Interested. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The initial discussion just came about yesterday at wt:rfa, but seems to have some interest... will probably die a fast death, but we'll see.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered asking the big guy for his opinion? It often means something to a proposal when Jimbo backs it up. :P iMatthew ^talk at 18:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want more feedback on this before moving forward... even to ask Jimbo about it.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Balloonman, got any time to do a little candidate-researching to stem the RfA drought?  Skomorokh  15:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't the energy or desire to do so...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; get well soon :)  Skomorokh  15:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not up for full reviews or nominations, I wonder if you would be tempted to give feedback at WP:VETTING? I understand you've been in the email feedback game longer than most :)  Skomorokh  22:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, unless you are talking about somebody considering becoming a 'crat or going for a second RfA after an embarrassing failed attempt, I completely detest off-wiki reviews.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for the feedback.  Skomorokh  23:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts on the page Tyler Kalisiak? It's currently tagged as A7, and it doesn't seem to assert notability, but being a "professional" in the field might indicate at least some importance to get by CSD. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I killed it. There was nothing to indicate that he was anything more than a failed motorcycle racer. IMHO, this was a subtle way of an attempt at making his motivational speaking look impressive.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That works. Thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created yesterday, meaning you have until 19 December to get it peer reviewed and added to the featured topic, or someone could nominate the topic for removal - rst20xx (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Since you're an admin and a member of the Military History WikiProject, feel free to list yourself here. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]