Jump to content

User talk:SB Johnny

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anythingyouwant (talk | contribs) at 09:39, 12 April 2009 (→Other Editors that helped create the Election version of Sara Palin: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please note: I generally don't watch talk pages, so if I've left a note on yours, please reply here (I'll do likewise).

Archive 1 (up to December, 2006) archive #2 archive #3

thanks

for your positive comments on my editing.

now how do i get a cool user page like you?

I could help edit any herbs on a semi regular basis, but am unsure of how to get onboard with this....

thanks for any help Koibeatu (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts?

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MPF seems dead in the water, but with the RFC open, I'm hesitant to fix the problems (such as in Acer negundo). I'm also just tired of fixing the same problems over and over, year after year, if you know what I mean (I'm not as active on Wikipedia as I once was, mostly because I got tired of agruing with him). --SB_Johnny | talk 11:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to hear from you. Yeah, the RfC/U process is under some debate right now what to do with it as many people have said it seems "broken". We've had no outside participation (who can blame them - I wouldn't want to wade through mounds of discussions I wasn't involved in) and MPF has chosen not to reply yet, though he hasn't edited elsewhere on Wikipedia since. I'm going to assume something else might have happened to pull him away from Wikipedia, but it might appear to someone that any time he is confronted with this discussion, he stops editing. The RfC was moved from pending to open discussions, though, so someone took notice. Personally, I'd say we have clear evidence that supports fixing such issues (consensus is against MPF), so I would see no problem in altering the wording that MPF prefers. I'm not that great at detecting his POV, so I'd say do what you can if you're inclined to do so. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ClubWhore

Yes, I noticed that the contribs were positive. I allowed account creation, so another account can be created. bibliomaniac15 23:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

I've responded and have placed a request on the page. Terra What do you want? 19:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Maybe you can help me. Long story really, basically I made a few test edits and User:Barneca deemed them vandalism and gave me warnings. I then went to ask him/her directly why exactly I had been given warnings. I said nothing offensive, though I did question his heavy handedness with the warning botton and suggested that a more reasonable admin might have greated a newbie in a somewhat nicer way. I was stunned when my comments resulted in a 24hr block. Now the block is over I have been trying to talk to User:Barneca about the way he deals with people in general on here, and more specificly his ostensible heavy handedness with new editors when he adjudges them to have commited a minor act of vandalism. Unforunately User:Barneca refuses to talk about this with me. I get the impression that he is an admin whose power has gone slightly to his head and it makes me concerned that he/she may scare away new editors, albeit perhaps unitentionally. As such I was wondering what you might suggest I do about this. I just wish User:Barneca would give people the benefit of the doubt more often and be a bit more pleasant in his dealings with non-admins. 79.69.199.112 (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arboretum Infobox

Hi, I saw that you responded to a talk page question on WP:H&G regarding the creation of an infobox for arboretums, botanical gardens, etc. I was wondering whether anything had come of this in the year or so since the question was raised, as I recently started wondering if such an infobox existed myself. I'd be happy to begin construction on one, though I've never done one before. Regards, NcSchu(Talk) 15:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{wikiversity-bc-inline}}

Not going to be a style option, is it? -- carol (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? --SB_Johnny | talk 13:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to find them as I am searching information for the articles I am cleaning or initiating and when I add them to the article, the others, wiktionary, wikicommons and wikispecies all have an inline option. The question perhaps has an accusatory look and feel to it -- a look and feel that I encounter everytime I put these stylized interwiki links on the articles so, I was sharing this as well. -- carol (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see :). It's not so much s stylized template, it's just that the bloom clock is so large (about 1/3 of all Wikiversity pages are part of it) that it just makes it easier to just use that one rather than using one of the more generic Wikiversity templates (where you'd have to add in pretty much all the text and links by hand). Should be easy enough to make an inline version though... let me know if you need help making it! --SB_Johnny | talk 22:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The almost subliminal sarcasm about being inline or not seems to not have been missed! Yay! I recently called one of the plant people a trouble-maker for ranking one of my articles as "start" and I compared it to another article which had also been ranked as "start" an article I would have ranked (based on the ranking my articles have received as 'stub'). My mood through all of this has run from mildly bemused to outright and almost hysterical laughter (transcribing the whole title of one of the old botany books had more to do with the hysterical laughter though: A Dictionary of Medical Science; Containing a Concise Explanation of the Various Subjects and Terms of Anatomy, Physiology, Pathology, Hygiene, Therapeutics, Medical Chemistry, Pharmacology, Pharmacy, Surgery, Obstetrics, Medical Jurisprudence, and Dentistry; Notices of Climate, and of Mineral Waters; Formulae for Officinal, Empirical, and Dietetic Preparations; with the Accentuation and Etymology of the Terms, and the French and Other Synonyms. -- can you sense at least a chuckle from that?).
There are a few photographs being uploaded to the commons right now and they are being given a bogus file history and it has put me into a situation where I read my own writing and it looks as if I am 'running for some office' and I really dislike writing defensively like that -- justifying my claims in a situation in which everyone knows I have no way to actually prove anything. It has a stink to it that I don't like. I mention this now because the gaining of admin privs has given the appearance/odor similar to this defensive 'running for office'. I really dislike the pasting of templates on the talk pages of the people who voted, for example. The whole scene seems boring and ass-kissing and I am perhaps good at ass-kissing but not like that.
That you think that I can be trusted to move and rename the articles myself is really nice. If I could make a less literal analogy to the situation, "Those waters seem way to warm for me. Not hot, like the temperatures that would kill a human being, but warm like the temperatures that would put a good brain into a lull." The wikipedia machine is a really big one and everyone is just a cog.... -- carol (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juiced was aggressive with what others had done. Juiced changed edits without discussing it with the person whose edits were being changed. Juiced was having a problem at the commons, not here. I am trying to think of when I have recently followed an edit history and changed the edits without talking to the person....

Still thinking.....

Nope, I can't remember doing this. But! I do remember a time when it was being done to me -- today even!

If you can tell me what you think is the similarity in the situations, it would help maybe. -- carol (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/CarolSpears

Per your oppose vote on the proposal: If you write up a proposal (just put it in the section after mine), set out a reasonable timescale, name what Carol's role is, and she agrees to it, I would certainly agree to it. My suggestion is the default proposal. You may want to have a look at the new proposal, though: Thanks to User:Blechnic and WP:PLANTS, fixing everything is a much more viable option, and as such, the old proposal couldn't stand. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was more of a "If we can't find anyone to fix the work, and Carol doesn't agree to do it..." Trust me, I've done complete rewrites of three of the articles, and will probably do more, so I'm not trying to expunge it. That said, any reasonably large-scale edit of CarolSpears to botanical articles should be suspected at this point, as a lot of copyvio has been found. We don't have to expunge her, but we do have to fix the problem she caused. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wikinews:Neopaganism growing fast

Is this a good summary for the thread that is building at the Plants Project about how to handle rosids controversy? I am unable to extract from my mind from something I read recently which was one of those not funny jokes about how Christ probably did not even get asked to be the husband of the Catholic church. -- carol (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hey Johnny. Thanks heaps for taking care of this. Muchly appreciated. :) Cheers, Sarah 00:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Arabism

Re your message: The copy on Wikiversity is the same POV article that is posted by sockpuppets of MarthaFiles (talk · contribs). I guess she gave up on en.wikipedia and moved over to en.wikiversity. I'd delete the "article" and block the account. See for the last time it was on ANI. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison article

I would be more than happy to transfer the article, but right now we havent yet decided whether the article would stay on wikipedia. There is a dispute(see talk page). If the article could be on wikiversity and wikipedia, that would be excellent. But if the article could only be on one wiki, i prefer it stay on wikipedia.Teeninvestor (talk) P.S. I have merged my account.

I have already unified my account, but i have no knowledge transferring material to another wikiversity. You're going to have to do that. Teeninvestor (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh man wikiversity is lacking a lot of articles.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teeninvestor (talk • contribs) 15:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you regularly import hte changes of the version on wikipedia to wikiversity if you see it and i'm not available? I'm not very familiar with wikiversity. Teeninvestor (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the wikiversity article to reflect a source i found. It's imported from wikipedia, if you don't mind. Also, I have a question. If the keep-to-delete vote is 13 to 9, and the keep side has an advantage in arguments and numbers, is it probable that the article will be deleted? it seems that deletion is only the outcome when there is a "deletion consensus" majority of editors seem to want to keep my article on wikipedia. Also, can you take a look yourself, its been vastly improved. I encourage you to vote in the discussion as you were one of the first people to see the article. Teeninvestor (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki

Possibly Wikipedia talk:No original research/noticeboard is the last place I would think to post a message about transwiking NOR to 'versity, I would try WT:DELETION or WP:VPR or WP:AN as higher profile locations for your generous offer. MBisanz talk 19:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's more specifically OR that I was looking into, the vast majority of things not good for WP probably won't be good for WV either. --SB_Johnny | talk 09:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that {{Howto}} suggests import to wv. --mikeu talk 16:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thx

Thanks for just protecting the page. It's hard to understand why it's gone on for so long changing plant naming policy page without discussion or agreement. Hi, by the way. --KP Botany (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richardlord50. If you'd like, I can import this article to Wikiversity (research and synthesis are permitted there). I'm fairly sure it will not survive the AfD process on Wikipedia, since it appears to be an academic essay. --SB_Johnny | talk 18:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much very much appreciated I would be very grateful if you did.Can you confirm please when its done!Although I would like the article to be read by a general audience.

Is it possible to have both(both at the same time published by Wikipedia)?A general audience and a specialist audience.And also,I still have much more editing to do on the article I would like to be judged when the article is finished I just need time to finish my edits.Leave a message on my talk page.Richardlord50 (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palin

Welcome to the Land of the ... um, there is a euphemism, I am sure. At any rate, welcome, and thanks for the assist. You watch me and I'll watch you and I'm sure we'll muddle through. Good enough? Reply here, puppy does watch. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am now going to yell at you. You are editing the article, not merely implementing edits when there is clear consensus to do so. When an admin edits a fully protected article, there should be zero complaints on the talk page. Every now and then there is a die-hard POV pushing fringe editor who will bitch, but that should be avoided if at all possible. You are not being neutral; you are not an uninvolved admin; you are editing the article. A protected article. Please stop. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I only edited when there was an {{editrequested}} template standing for more than a day... I'll watch you then. --SB_Johnny | talk 12:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I cannot be on all the time, and sometimes am gone for a day or so. Just because an "editprotected" template is up doesn't mean there is really consensus. The editors are not, interestingly, edit warring over the templates, although in a way it would be nice if they would. If there were an edit war about the darn things it would be fairly clear there is no consensus. As they do not, however, care is indicated. Next time one appears, you may wish to ask pointed questions and wait for a response. A simple "Is this consensus? Does ANYONE disagree?" would do it. Wait another day after that. It won't hurt a darn thing for them to learn patience - impatience and a raging desire to "Fix the Article NOW" is what got us here. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, though I think my reasons are misunderstood (which is understandable, since I didn't do much of a job of explaining them!)... should I bother explaining it on the page, or am I now "tainted"? :-P
The reasoning was that since there's a huge disagreement over whether it belongs, it should be taken out and discussed (same thing that would be done to an unsourced and debated {{fact}}ual issue, etc.). It's very interesting to watch though... maybe we need to do a WV study on BLPs and protected pages, eh :-)? --SB_Johnny | talk 13:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I comprehend your reasoning; but this is not a BLP issue. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Johnny, sorry you got dragged into this unknowing, but I hope you make some effort to stick around. We've had an issue at this article with admins claiming to be uninvolved when they really weren't. (See Jossi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war.) I was happy you got involved with this, because KC was actually an involved editor in the rape kit stuff previously[1]. It's actually pretty shocking that she wheel-warred you on this by reverting your decision. Kelly hi! 22:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly, this is the third fourth? page you've placed this slander upon, and this is getting old. My "involvement" was trying to stop an edit war[2]. Your previous involvement with me included my warnign you for 6rr, to which you responded with a campaign of attack, discussion of which took up a subpage of AN. Are you sure you want to keep harassing me and attacking my character? Do you plan to canvass all of Wikipedia with this stuff? KillerChihuahua?!? 03:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I've already told you that it isn't wheel warring. It would be if Johnny reverted me. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think if Kelly wanted to harass you and attack your character, he would have left no doubt that he had done so. Don't take everything so personally. Saying an admin made a mistake is not the same as saying the admin is a worthless scumbag, and no one has made anything like the latter assertion about you (at least not at this talk page).Ferrylodge (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and saying "Please rescue me from IDCab bullcrap"[3] is repeating a tired, old, discredited meme as an attempt at character assassination, simply because Kelly didn't get a desired edit. The really silly part is that he's wasting all this time smearing me, when he could be discussing the edits on the article talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 05:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Palin: probation

I presume you have seen the unanimous support for article probation on ANI. If you are still inclined to assist with this problematic article, and if you have the time, it would be much appreciated. As Kelly's irrational hostility and vendetta attitude towards me will unfortunately probably lead to Teh Dramahz - and there is currently no one else who has not left the article for their own sanity (I speak here of uninvolved admins). There are of course the occasional drive-by admins, of differing degrees of involvement and understanding of the background of the article(s). I suggest we follow an incremental approach as regards remedies; ban editors from any Palin articles for a day, a week, a month, whatever - and block to enforce if needed, would be my suggestion. I strongly suggest we enforce WP:TPG and get people back on the article content, and be brutal about infractions. Your thoughts? Or perhaps it would be best for you to place them on the linked section on ANI. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at work now (just stealing some wifi atm to write up a bill), but sure, I'll keep an eye on it when I get back to the farm this afternoon. However, I'm even less versed in article probation than I am in the intricacies of WP:BLP, so I'll be focusing on discussion, not blocks. FWIW, I'm not at all stressed out by any of it... I'm genuinely uninvolved (Sarah Palin's interesting enough to learn a bit about, but I don't find her that interesting, so I really have no preference for what goes in or stays out). --SB_Johnny | talk 15:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nods, I am uninvolved and completely neutral myself, but I've been riding herd on the wars off and on since around September I think, so I've done enough for Kelly to scream "Involved" and get some traction depending on the audience. I find it odd you actually find her interesting: one of the reasons I have no concerns about the content (what goes in stays out etc) is because I find her supremely boring. I don't understand the American public's obsession with her at all. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After EC:

Bother. You posted[4] then someone "closed" the discussion. I'd much rather we discuss this and reach consensus, so I'm bringing it here.
copied from ANI:
I think the trick then is to ignore the "party" aspects. The BLP policy is pretty clear that if something's a matter of major dispute, it should be taken out until a consensus can be reached. I thought about it a bit yesterday on the tractor-seat, and I just don't agree with where you've drawn the line for what is or is not a "BLP issue". I didn't mean say it was an RS issue, but rather that it could be treated in a similar manner (with relevant/irrelevant an analog of verifiable/unverified). It looks like the sources read that she didn't know about it, so the controversy is about relevance to the BLP, and thus is a "BLP issue" :-). --SB_Johnny | talk 13:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think you have excellent points. I don't understand what you mean by "party" aspects, though. I also think its a content dispute, and not a BLP violation, because utilizing that argument "if there is dispute, remove it rather than keep it" can be used to make all bios on wp hagiographies simply by having an edit war. I don't think its anywhere near as "clear" as you seem to be stating. There is no dispute about the core subject matter: the dispute is about whether to include it. There is a difference. Meanwhile, I removed the Hustler crap citing BLP and there was no doubt about that existing, either - but it was not even logically arguably about the subject of the article. Back to you, Johnny - KillerChihuahua?!? 15:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was in response to something you said (I'm not sure what you meant by party though... editwarring parties? political parties?). No biggie though :-). I guess one way I've been thinking about it is that while the page is protected, we should clean up the things that caused the edit warriors to paint themselves blue and start mooning each other, and it's clear that this was one of those things. My understanding of the arguments to remove the section is that it's not necessarily relevant, and since it's also rather horrifying (at least to me, and this is the first I personally have ever heard of it), I can see the sense in the argument that since it's not actually about her (but rather something one of her appointees did), it might not be relevant to her biography. As much as I (and, I presume, you) might find it rather scandalous that she allowed this to happen on her watch, I haven't seen anything that connects it to her, or even whether she made any public comment about it.
So, should it be in the article? Frankly, I don't know... it does (to me personally) say something about her, but that's just me, if you see what I mean :-). I do think that whether it's included or not depends on whether you think that says something about her, and that is what's in dispute. If that's the dispute, then it's most certainly a "BLP issue", so we should keep it off the page for now until the editors can come to a solution that they are collectively comfortable with. I just don't think you and I should decide that it's ok when serving as moderators.
I do think that despite anything you (as in you, Puppy) see, feel, or intend here, that there is a perception going that you're "taking a side". I'll step in, but you need to trust me... the first thing I'll do is open a 1-day straw poll on whether people think it's a "contentious BLP issue", because (again) I don't think that's for the moderator to decide. I'll only do that if you promise to (a) keep coaching me, and (b) give me my rope (if they jerk me around by it, I promise not to send you the chiropractor bill (and no, I don't really go to chiropractors)) :-). The point is to keep them talking, and nudge them (gently when possible) towards a satisfactory solution.
BTW, I posted the stuff from AN/I here... so perhaps we should move this conversation there as well? --SB_Johnny | talk 19:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchangel on Palin

I don't want to go to Wikiquette and make a bad situation worse (and because this is basically a content dispute and Anarchangel's behavior is only borderline uncivil), but is there anyway you could review some of his recent statements and actions and, if you agree with my assessment, just ask him to deal more constructively on the article? We have not had a great history on this talk page with civil behavior, but aside from him, we've reduced uncivil language and actions to only a few sarcastic or snarky remarks every now and then. Part of the reason we've been on better behavior recently is because you and Killer have been patrolling the article. But things could be better, and perhaps some friendly warnings or opinions from uninvolved admins will help more than my repeated pleas to him.

I'm sure you've noticed some of my comments on this before, but here are some highlights:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASarah_Palin&diff=262849929&oldid=262796867 . We have been arguing about whether or not the RK controversy language is undue weight for months, yet he makes one argument and claims that it is refuted. This cannot be done in good faith...we cannot have believed that we agree with his assessment that the argument was refuted.

He asked me, "Led, how'd you do in math? Specifically, algebra? Anarchangel (talk) 09:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC) "This is just stupid. The wording I used comes directly from the article. The formula is a 100% transposition. You're wasting my time. Anarchangel (talk) 09:52, 26 Dec" and then cut and pasted the language into our current discussion after I thanked him for not repeating the insult.

"How many times have you changed your arguments, I wonder? I'll count this as a concession for now, as for now, you have not answered the question. Anarchangel (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)" This was in response to a comment I made in which I specifically tried to refute his argument on logical grounds. I clearly didn't make a concession, yet he chalked it up as one in an insulting manner.

To another poster's good faith argument, he said ""WP:BLP specifically references WP:Coatrack, so calling this rape kit material coatracky is certainly relevant here." : BLP and other rules specifically reference imaginary examples of rule violations etc, does that mean they are also relevant here? Can you persuade me that this roughshod rampage over logic is a mistake rather than obfuscation? Anarchangel (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)"

We have had a two-weeklong disagreement about whether or not the negative proof fallacy applies to the SPT article or WP article. Even though he never addressed my final post (which I admittedly think was quite polite and convincing) he counted it as currently unrefuted, and then later made the claim 5 times : in the "Straw Poll on rape kits" section, "In reference to prior discussions on the subject" section, "New RK section" section, "A suggestion then" section, and "Edit Request 2" section. Of course he can state his opinion however many times he wants, but when he claims that the issue is unrefuted while there is an ongoing discussion, constructive dialog is nearly impossible. When he spams the board with the claims, it becomes almost impossible. Even after we were discussing the issue, he still says his argument in "unrefuted" and that my objection is "frightening". He said "I stand by my statement that the negative proof critique of the sentence is Contended and currently Unrefuted. Anarchangel (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC) I also find the objection to logical argument as being Original Research frightening. Anarchangel (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)"

There are other examples of discourteous and unconstructive comments, but I believe my point is clear.

Listen, I know that we all have contributed to the negative atmosphere over there from time to time, myself included. But even as I try to get more courteous responses, even as I argue for Anarchangel and others about process (against my interest in the result on the article), and after I approach him in polite terms, he still replies with insults, snarky comments, misrepresenting others' opinions, claiming his ideas are unrefuted even though they've been contended for weeks, etc... I realize my warnings to him will not be helpful in the long run, so perhaps you or Killer can take a look and see if anything less public and more friendly can help.

If you find this post on your talk page inappropriate, feel free to delete the whole shabang.LedRush (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am sorry to clutter up your page with examples, but I almost feel like Anarchangel is trying to antagonize me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASarah_Palin&diff=262874593&oldid=262864791 The last change he made here (other than to again move the discussion into his "refuted?" category, was to say things like his own argument is "incontrovertible" and that every argument against his edits based on Undue or coatrack are "red herrings". In addition, he personally insults me by saying it is "bizarre" and "ironic" that Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement is on my talk page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASarah_Palin&diff=262889107&oldid=262875084 I started a new section with a polite invitation for concise arguments because our above discussion had devolved into many side arguments. In this edit, he puts his own comments before mine (I guess to get the first word in), ignores my points, claims I've ignored his and therefore I've conceded the points and that I am "cheating" (yet another personal attack).
Please, take a look at my edits that preceded his...I have remained cordial and talking about the policy. His personal attacks on me are breaches of Wikiquette and are making constructive dialog difficult. I know that this page gets heated (and I myself have been heated there), but I don't feel his personal attacks and incivility are warranted.LedRush (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anent this, for some interesting material, look at the edit summaries --- similar to those at User:Collect/actual summaries Collect (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Your page is useless without difs, and might be considered an attack page with difs, unless you intend to report on ANI or start an Rfc. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My page is an essay showing types of "edit summaries" and was not aimed at citing any specific editor at all. Had I used diffs, it would indeed be an attack page not allowed in userspace, but since it was not aimed at any named editor, it is not an attack page. The point of the page, indeed, is to tell folks not to use those types of edit summaries, with which I trust you concur, and is thus not "useless." Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a short note to him about it yesterday. While I'm not particularly vocal on the Palin talk page, I am keeping an eye on it, and can leave another short note if it seems necessary to do so. The best thing for you two to do is to not reply in kind (turn the other cheek and/or give him enough rope), and try to focus on improving the article. In the long term, it's good to have passionate people with different points of view on the subject: good articles mix bitter and sweet, not bland. --SB_Johnny | talk 13:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second what Johnny says here - we have both seen a good deal of general rudeness and snarkiness, sometimes degenerating into outright personal attacks, but at this juncture trying to rise above and be civil and focus on the article is what will serve you (and the article) best. No need perpetuating the hostilities. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you two are right. It just makes it hard when people call you stupid, accuse you of cheating, and misrepresent your ideas while claiming victory all over the talk page. As I've said, I've been trying to respond only constructively, but I will redouble my efforts.LedRush (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is much appreciated, and admirable behavior as well. Not easy to do, as anyone who has experienced such negativity can attest. Be assured that your efforts are not unnoticed. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny, I don't know you feel about archiving this immediately, but perhaps it would be better so as Anarachangel doesn't feel like he's being unjustly attacked. I will stand by all of my above statements, but I just don't want to engender more hard feelings that will make discussion even more difficult. Just a thought...LedRush (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advice about Anarchangel

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASarah_Palin&diff=263036192&oldid=263033722

Anarchangel has been creating a list of refuted arguments as a part of his "Record of consensus building". It is my belief that if this is a record of consensus building, it should not be dominated by one person's opinion. I have repeatedly argued against Anarchangel's opinions on whether certain statements are invalid because they are examples of the negative proof fallacy. Instead of arguing my position, now he is claiming victory and stating that his ideas are "unrefuted" or "has not been addressed" even though I dispute and address his arguments. I tried to remove these statements from the "refuted" section and into the "disputed" one in a NPOV weigh...meaning that I didn't claim victory or anything like that. But he has reverted me...see the diff above.

I believe this behavior makes constructive dialog impossible and I find it insulting and uncivil to diminish others' opinions and misrepresent the standing of a disagreement, especially after being politely told that the issues are still in dispute.

I want to know the best way of ensuring that our disputes are correctly represented on that list without engaging in a discussion page edit war. Personally, I don't see the value in section, especially when dominated by one editor who unilaterally decides who wins what arguments.

Anarchangel seem to be escalating his actions, and I feel this needs to be addressed.LedRush (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


He is [5]] "restoring" one side of a discussion, removing all comments from it. When a comment noting this was made, he moved that comment to a place where it makes no sense at all. He has been warned in the past, IIRC, for "rearranging" the talk page. I would respectfully ask that you look at his contrib history and note his preoccupation with the T:SP page, and moving material around in it. Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where was that discussion removed to begin with, can you find the dif? Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 22:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too many edits not fully labeled -- but try this one to see how it works [6] edit summary: Move WEIGHT/UNDUE refutation to Refuted; it hasn't been Contradicted, let alone Refuted. Had reflected on LR's point b4 he made it but found refutation to be incontrovertible, & fast track justified. . .... result wholesale deletion of remarks he does not like. Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck??? I cannot make heads or tails of what he was trying to do. Ok, I will try very, very hard to be Puppy-on-the-spot if more edits like this occur, but one problem is that I cannot undo once a few edits ( and sometimes only one edit) occur after a particular edit. SB_Johnny, what say you? Any bright ideas about how to get Anarchangel to stop this? I am sure he does not mean to be disruptive, but this is completely unacceptable. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look, couldn't make much sense of it. Posting a suggestion on the page. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it is worth, Led's words "It just makes it hard when people call you stupid, accuse you of cheating, and misrepresent your ideas while claiming victory all over the talk page" describe exactly how I am left feeling after many or most discussions on that talk page. Just a suggestion that one's perspective has a lot to do with it. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a problem many editors have right now. This is why the article is locked and on probation. Your courtesy and forbearance is much appreciated! Every time you resist the impulse to respond in kind, you help us to get back to civil discussions. I know at times it appears that no progess is being made, but it is. Have patience, and again thanks for keeping things civil! KillerChihuahua?!? 22:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Collect and Kelly are both complaining of unevenhandedness in warnings and - I hate to say it, but almost trollishly - speculating as to why a warning was given. I'm switching to {{Uw-probation}} for every warning from now on, per our earlier discussion. I was not 100% certain of that before, as I hate templating regulars, but its better than this nonsense. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the better format would probably be {{subst:uw-probation|Article|Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation}}. Kelly hi! 16:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, as opposed to the article? Guidelines are to article, not probation log page. The log page is linked from the probation notice at top of article talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my error! Guidelines now say either, I missed that. Well, Johnny, which do you think? KillerChihuahua?!? 16:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had just copied the same format used at the Obama probation page - shouldn't be a big deal either way, I should think. Actually, this may be better because the probation applies to a group of articles, not just one. Kelly hi! 16:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're supposed to put that on who's page then? And where are the conversations about uneven warnings? --SB_Johnny | talk 16:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what has been happening at Barack Obama, it's intended as a generic notification towards potentially tendentious editors that the article is on probation, so they can see the community remedy. There's a notification log on the probation page. The "uneven warnings" must be a misunderstanding, I don't feel that way (can't speak for Collect). Kelly hi! 16:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant no accusation of any sort either. Seems misunderstanding exists (title of a new WP page, I suppose). <g> Collect (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone you feel needs a warning rather than blocking outright with no warning given. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: good point (group of articles) - I'll use the logpage link version, then. Thanks, Kelly. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<undent> I'm wondering if we should put at least a note on the talkpages of articles associated with Palin that the community decided on this probation. If we do, some of the articles are pretty obvious - like Todd Palin or Mayoralty of Sarah Palin. Some of them I'm not so sure - like Wasilla, Alaska or Gravina Island Bridge. Kelly hi! 17:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) If the probation extends to those articles, then yes, we probably should. --SB_Johnny | talk 17:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since everyone's hanging out on my talk page, I'll ask for opinions about v:Wikipedia and the 2008 US elections here :-). I know the Palin article was discussed on NPR at least twice. --SB_Johnny | talk 17:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on Todd, Mayorality. Not the others unless there is a flare-up - we can decide as we go. Any other articles which have been problematic? Might as well paste the notice on them all at once. Johnny or Kelly, would you mind posting them? I'm busy with a newbie fringe editor right now. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do it a little later today if that's OK with everyone. For now I'll stick with the really obvious articles, and agree that we can tag the other articles if there's a flareup. Thanks, Puppy. Kelly hi! 17:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
/me nominates Kelly. I'm off for a while to fix something in the barn. --SB_Johnny | talk 17:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I left notes at the following articles:

  1. Mayoralty of Sarah Palin
  2. Governorship of Sarah Palin
  3. Political positions of Sarah Palin
  4. Electoral history of Sarah Palin
  5. Alaska gubernatorial election, 2006
  6. John McCain presidential campaign, 2008
  7. Public image and reception of Sarah Palin
  8. Sarah Palin Interviews with Katie Couric
  9. Todd Palin
  10. Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal
  11. Sarah Palin email hack
  12. Parodies of Sarah Palin
  13. The Masked Avengers' prank on Sarah Palin

There are a few other articles that admins familiar with the Palin situation should watchlist. In addition to the aforementioned Wasilla, Alaska and Gravina Island Bridge, I would recommend Wasilla Bible Church, Wasilla Assembly of God, Lyda Green, Hollis French, Alaska gas pipeline, Knik Arm Bridge, Who's Nailin' Paylin?, Tina Fey, and MILF (slang) (ugh). Kelly hi! 18:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, also Walt Monegan. There are probably some others I'm forgetting. The spillover on Palin has been pretty wide. Kelly hi! 18:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I thought yuo added the notice - as in, the {{Community article probation}} KillerChihuahua?!? 18:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dang - should I go back and change it? Kelly hi! 18:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um... would you mind terribly adding it? thanks ever so much, really truly. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, no problem. :) Kelly hi! 18:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Palin article probation

Articles with probation notice placed on talk page (date)

  1. Alaska gubernatorial election, 2006 (10 January 2009)
  2. Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal (10 January 2009)
  3. Electoral history of Sarah Palin (10 January 2009)
  4. Governorship of Sarah Palin (10 January 2009)
  5. John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 (10 January 2009)
  6. Mayoralty of Sarah Palin (10 January 2009)
  7. Parodies of Sarah Palin (10 January 2009)
  8. Political positions of Sarah Palin (10 January 2009)
  9. Public image and reception of Sarah Palin (10 January 2009)
  10. Sarah Palin email hack (10 January 2009)
  11. Sarah Palin Interviews with Katie Couric (10 January 2009)
  12. The Masked Avengers' prank on Sarah Palin (10 January 2009)
  13. Todd Palin (10 January 2009)


Feel free to add to THIS list (not a post per se)


Notice given

[7] KillerChihuahua?!? 00:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Philadelphia Meetup

Hey,

As you may have noticed, we haven't had any meetups. Would you be interested in helping to restart the chapter there? Texas Dex and Immortal Goddezz seemed to have lost interest. Let me know. --Mblumber (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, at your suggestion I sent User:Whiteknight a message. Hopefully it'll work out. Thanks for forwarding the message. --Mblumber (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making Wikipedia a better place

The Admin's Barnstar
Your work on the Sarah Palin talk page has made the tone better, the editors better, the article better, and Wikipedia better. LedRush (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Range blocking

I've hardblocked his range on enwiki before and had some minor collateral damage. But soft blocking the range here doesn't seem to generate any damage, so I think that is our best course. MBisanz talk 17:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'm not a fan of rangeblocks, but with en.wv closed off he seems to have more free time for this sort of thing. --SB_Johnny | talk 17:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited!


thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 08:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited!

You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
March 15, 2009
Time: 3pm
Location: Drexel University

RSVP

In the afternoon, we will hold a session at Drexel dedicated to discussing Wikimedia Pennsylvania activity and cooperation with the regional Wikimedia New York City chapter.

Are events like a Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia in our future?

In the evening, we'll share dinner and friendly wiki-chat at a local Italian restaurant.
This has been an automatic delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting mediation on Salvia Lyrata concerning warnings to livestock

First Light & StationNT5Bmedia are at an impass concerning the toxicity studies determining hazards to livestock of the "frost weed". Since this article was initiated, in regards to your previous work, I would like to give you the link to the mediation page, and say that the warnings previously published are not a POV, but written from excerpts of correspondence with Texas A&M University, following investigations on the mortality of grazing livestock, where Salvia Lyrata is suspect. Join in, whatever 2 cents worth you feel may be contributed. StationNT5Bmedia (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at this

I've messaged all four wikiversity crats this time and am sending them messages on the wikis they each seem most active on. Please see if you can do anything about this: v:User_talk:SB_Johnny#Usurpation_follow-up. Thanks.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you around?

? If so, you may wish to watch the Sarah Palin article a little more closely - there was an edit war a couple of days ago, since moved to the talk page where mediation seems to be proceeding well. You haven't made an appearance so I'm pinging you here in case you're around, but missed it. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now I've banned Ferrylodge for one week, as he seems determined to derail the discussion in order to discuss some edits he wants to make, and has chosen not to wait. Emailing you also. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)Judging by his contribution history, SBJohnny is not around. You stated at the article talk page: "GreekParadise wishes to include mention of the Knik Arm Bridge, as that explains an otherwise unexplained 200 mil, almost half the sum in question. GP feels it is unbalanced, misleading, and poor writing to explain half the money and one bridge, and leave out the other half and the other bridge."[8] You also opined:

It appears the primary argument for is that the bill included both bridges and half the money was for the KAB. Can everyone concede that this is a valid point? We're talking about what, around 424 mil, and then we start talking about 240 mil with nary a mention of what happened to the other 200 mil - that could indeed be confusing.[9]

My suggested edits were on precisely this topic.[10] They clarified that the Gravina earmark was separate from the Knik earmark according to reliable sources. Your block is an abuse of admin tools. I suggest that you seek assistance from another admin.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I haven't been around: it's kidding and planting season, and a bit busy at work as well :-). Looks like I might have some time today though... what happened? --SB_Johnny | talk 08:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I would have emailed you, but KC already had done that, so it seemed unnecessary. I'll pop you an email now, though.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear me, is the barn on high ground I hope? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck in your mediation, you three. Hopefully some fruitful discussion takes place, parties can come to terms and find common ground, and we can all come out on the other end better as a result. Thank you for your efforts, SB. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I join in these nice wishes, and hope for a fruitful outcome where all come out happier and better. One point, though. Undoing Ferrylodge's ban will give Ferrylodge a license to disrupt any mediation in future, wasting the time and effort of experienced mediators. Which, from past episodes, I'm sure s/he will exploit to the tedious utmost. All in good faith, of course. . . dave souza, talk 18:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :-). I'm an experienced mediator too. --SB_Johnny | talk 18:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good. And I sincerely hope that you'll ensure that Ferrylodge doesn't arrange any more diruptive changes of topic on talk pages of articles under mediation. Best wishes, dave souza, talk 19:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he didn't sign up to be my meatpuppet or anything. Aspiring to the ideal is good, as long as you don't expect to actually reach it. It's all a matter of assuming good faith :-). --SB_Johnny | talk 19:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now, now, I fully accept that you're competent and will reinstate the ban or block Ferrylodge at the first sign of renewal of the problems that started this. And I certainly do appreciate your good faith in all this. All the best, dave souza, talk 19:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other Editors that helped create the Election version of Sara Palin

How do I inform the following editors that there is an important discussion relating to Sar Palin at her talk. The editors are; Steven_J_Anderson, Sitedown, Appraiser, Atom, BenBurch, jossi, SWAT Jester, Ron John, sheffield steel, Aruhnka, Aunt Entropy, Phlegm Rooster, JamesMLane. TVoz, Factcheckeratyourservice, Spiff1959, Bobblehead, Parsecboy, Neutralis, Aprock, LamaLoLeshaLa, Eric the Red, Rktect, Wikidemon, Writegeist, Evbwiki,jcdenton, and probably another dozen that Ive forgotten. I don't want to be accused of canvassing but this is important.--Buster7 (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advice (etc.) for Ferrylodge, regarding the Sarah Palin article

This is the place to put it! --SB_Johnny | talk 20:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Johnny. I can't advise myself, so will say no more here for now.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Crickets chirping. :)Ferrylodge (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More like spring peepers this time of year :-). How would you like to move forward? --SB_Johnny | talk 15:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John. I'm not chomping at the bit to make any article edits at the article in question, but it would be nice to be able to do so. I don't see how I was disruptive at the article, since I did revert everthing that I was asked to revert. Honestly, if there was a freeze in effect at the time of those edits of mine, it was not well-publicized, and I'm still unclear about where that freeze was announced at the talk page. The edits themselves (that I reverted) were pretty straightforward. As KC has said, the first paragraph of the section is not fully supported by the cited source (which only discusses one bridge and not two, and discusses a 200 mil. earmark and not a 400 mil. earmark), but I'm totally willing to let that section remain in deep-freeze without trying to edit it before the editor's note is removed from the source-code.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything on the page at all declaring a freeze, tbh. That's why I had asked before if I was missing something. If the section needs revising, please discuss it on the talk page first to avoid undue hooplahs. Since nobody seems overly interested in discussing your ban, we'll just go by what we discussed earlier and lift it soon. Just try to be very conservative about making changes, and for Pete's sake don't make edits to sections under active discussion on the talk page! --SB_Johnny | talk 16:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, generally speaking.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, per WP:BLP, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."Ferrylodge (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the essence of the wiki is that many hands make light work. For the time being, it's probably better to just stay active on the talk where you'll have both hands available. Typing is difficult when one hand is busy keeping alligators at bay, eh? --SB_Johnny | talk 23:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'm not planning any article edits, and don't intend to monopolize the article. As you know, I only edited the article on three days in March, one in February, and three in January, and some of that was reverting vandals. The less I edit that article, the happier I'll be.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One note, FL. Just try and keep the repetition to a minimum. Stating the same thing with the same sources in lots of different places seems to be part of people's issues regarding your discussion habits. If you just refrain from feeling the need to respond to every comment on the talk page, things will work out better for you. Sometimes, discussion evolves very slowly, so it's okay to let a question or two go unanswered for a little while. And obviously, remember to remain civil. Outbursts like the one you had on your talk page won't be tolerated for long. Thanks FL, SB. --Ali'i 18:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, thanks Ali'i.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Ferrylodge and reëducation camp

Johnny, first a note of appreciation: your intelligent and congenial negotiating style is generally very helpful, and most welcome, not least for its honesty, fairness and marked absense of any abrasive authoritarian posturing or rabid egotism.

B-b-but. I must admit I’m a little mystified by the invitation to participate in some sort of Ferrylodge reëducation program.

We all, ahem, mess up from time to time in Wikiland. We know the errors of our ways. Doesn't it rather insult FL’s considerable (and often exasperating) intelligence to pretend he needs to stand in the corner and have his shortcomings pointed out, Red Guards-style, by his fellow contributors?

Also I’m not quite clear on the purpose of blocking him from the article. Was it just punitive? Or for the good of the article? Or of the WP community? Or for the good of FL?

If punitive, it has an appearance of pettiness, as a careful reading of the dispute (including FL’s alleged disobedience) that led to the block gives a strong impression that he was on a hiding to nothing from the moment he started – politely and reasonably, under the circumstances, IMHO – to defend himself and request explanations and diffs.

If for the good of the article, what good comes of depriving it of one its most vigilent, productive, intelligent, lucid and analytically-minded contributors?

If for the good of the WP community, how can dumbing-down the community be good for it?

If for the good of FL, I refer back to para 2 above: if his behaviour is at fault there's nothing you – we – can say about it that a fellow with his smarts doesn’t already know.

Just curious, because I'd have thought it would be enough to chuck a pail of water over both parties and move on. After all, you appear to have the bad boy on a tight leash and in fact (jeez, this will infuriate him!) he’s really pretty harmless. OK, maybe not that pretty :~).

Anyway, thanks for your generally excellent work around here. I'm sure most if not all of the SP squad are glad of it. Writegeist (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the SP squad? The goal here (for my part) is to figure out how the ban came about, and more importantly how to prevent a recurrence... taking into account the odd wikilaws, wikipolitics, and underlying wikidramas that may be at play. Nothing punitive involved, just a lot of emailing :-). Things shouldn't have gotten to the point where they did, but I've had quite a few knots to untangle. As one of those crazy people who climbs around trees with a chainsaw and long ropes, I'm definitely against leaving tangles untangled before climbing in. --SB_Johnny | talk 23:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Writegeist, I much appreciate your comment. For the non-anglophiles out there, the phrase "on a hiding to nothing" is defined here. Cheers (or cheerio).  :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And SP probably stands for "Sarah Palin".Ferrylodge (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, duh :-). Thanks for the dopeslap. --SB_Johnny | talk 23:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thx SBJ. Dang that job must be fun. There's a TV reality series about you lunatics. Shot in Oregon, I think, if that's where all males over the age of 16 are required by law to wear thick beards and thick plaid shirts and carry fully fuelled chainsaws at all times. No wonder you're so mellow. To you, SP is just a quiet, soothing place to rest up after a day of high-altitude mayhem. FL, thx for providing the translation :~). Writegeist (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Arborist, not lumberjack :-). Only do it a couple days a week anymore, as I'm a bit over the hill for a climber. Can't really say it's stressful, but it gives the body a good beating. --SB_Johnny | talk 00:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other Editors that helped create the Election version of Sara Palin

How do I inform the following editors that there is an important discussion relating to Sar Palin at her talk. The editors are; Steven_J_Anderson, Sitedown, Appraiser, Atom, BenBurch, jossi, SWAT Jester, Ron John, sheffield steel, Aruhnka, Aunt Entropy, Phlegm Rooster, JamesMLane. TVoz, Factcheckeratyourservice, Spiff1959, Bobblehead, Parsecboy, Neutralis, Aprock, LamaLoLeshaLa, Eric the Red, Rktect, Wikidemon, Writegeist, Evbwiki,jcdenton, and probably another dozen that Ive forgotten. I don't want to be accused of canvassing but this is important.--Buster7 (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buster. I hope SB Johnny will get a chance to reply to your question soon. In the mean time, please don't do it. Hundreds of editors were involved, and so picking only a few of them would be a big problem as far as canvassing is concerned. See WP:Canvas.Ferrylodge (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SB_Johnny&oldid=283334758"