User talk:SB Johnny

Archive 1 (up to December, 2006) archive #2 archive #3 archive #4 (March '08-Feb '09) archive #5 (March '09-May '09) #7 (to March 2012)

Perhaps this

I had seen a question asked about a tool. Perhaps this would help.

[1]

Wizardman also may know of additional tools, I know he has helped me with some CCI stuff in the past. — Ched : ? 20:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that will help for the next one (Hex got a positive ID on that article and removed the section). BTW, let me know if you run across any more like that (articles sent to AfD for using the old "sources" section rather than the cite templates)... I'm still following that hunch. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 11:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lifting the Gibraltar DYK restrictions

A couple of months ago, you opposed a proposal to lift the restrictions on Gibraltar-related DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012. Could you possibly clarify (1) under what conditions you would support a lifting of the restrictions, and (2) when you think it would be appropriate to lift the restrictions? Prioryman (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link to the discussion please? --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 14:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs, in the first collapsed box. Prioryman (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a current discussion somewhere? --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 13:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Prioryman (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi, Am I a qualifying contributor, I mean to get paid, if I am one of the winners? Thanks. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean if you're not logged in? I don't know, but I'll pass the question along. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 08:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is what I meant, but surely, if Wikipedia considers me a qualifying contributor, Wikipediocracy should too. By the by have you ever considered nominating the article for DYK? 76.126.142.59 (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing firm yet, but if you're in this for the money, I think you should create an account. Wikipedia doesn't charge anything for making accounts, last I checked ;-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 22:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I am in for the money mostly because it is fun to get payed for criticizing Wikipedia on Wikipedia. Yes, creating an account is free, but it is a hassle. I would not like to be attached to a user name, I prize my freedom. Besides I've already made most additions to the article as IP. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it says right there on the board: "Candidates for this prize will be registered Wikipedia user accounts" (italicized on the board). I get the impression that they're not interested in changing that rule, so not much more I can do for you. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 10:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AE nit-picking

Yeah, you probably shouldn't be commenting in the uninvolved administrator section on that case. Someone is bound to blow a gasket. ;) --The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why... I have absolutely no interest in Scientology, though I'm aware that it's been a contentious topic on WP. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 13:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant because of the specific article that was under discussion, but I guess it no longer matters.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not really all that involved in the article either. I'm interested as a reader, of course, but I don't have any particular stake in it as an "editor", much less as an "admin". --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 19:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added to the wikipedia controversies article

Just letting you know so I can get the reward . Cheers, nerd fighter 00:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Qworty

Please note: User talk pages User talk pages are rarely protected, and are semi-protected for short durations only in the most severe cases of vandalism from IP users. Users whose talk pages are semi-protected should have an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good faith comments from non-autoconfirmed users.[2]

"Give it a rest" isn't a valid reason for protecting a user's talk page. Please undo your action or be prepared to explain why you took it upon yourself to make up new rules at WP:ANI. Rklawton (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a perfectly valid reason per IAR (and in is case perhaps BLP as well). Leaving the poor guy be for a couple of days is the right thing to do, and hopefully can helm lower the drama level. I'm sure the wiser heads at AN/I will agree. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rklawton (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Philadelphia Wiki-Picnic: Saturday, June 22

	Philadelphia's Great American Wiknic at Penn Park
	You are invited to the Philadelphia edition of the Great American Wiknic taking place in Penn Park, on Saturday, June 22, 2013! We would love to see you there!--User:Ocaasi (talk)\|}}

Howdy

You know, I had no idea that you were an admin here? Neato. — Scott • talk 10:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute

Dear SB Johnny.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 23:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GLAM Cafe invitation

Wikipedians are invited to the GLAM Café at the Chemical Heritage Foundation to meet, talk, and edit. We provide the space, the coffee, and the snacks: you provide ideas and enthusiasm! On the second Tuesday of each month, starting November 12, 2013.

Re Eric's talk page

I appreciate your judgement. It needed to be blocked for a short time to allow cooling off, 24 hours was too long but your timing was perfect. Worm^TT(talk) 08:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

De nada. That's why you keep us old timers around hovering well over the fray, right? --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 12:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

your post was reverted by user:demiurge1000, but I have no idea why. 24.4.37.209 (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ramtha's School of Enlightenment

Hi SB Johnny. I saw your comment on the Ramtha's discussion page and have added a summary of the key points from the longer message. You can see that on the discussion page. I hope you're still willing to be a helpful interloper. Calstarry (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's in a name?

Ya know, I'd been meaning to ask you what the significance of your user name is. — Scott • talk 14:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Hortibox

Template:Hortibox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

cultivating trust
Thank you, "Oldtimer" interested in "horticulture, landscape architecture, philosophy, and history", for cultivating plant stubs, real life ("spend time doing something more satisfying") and trust, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, shucks :-). Thanks! --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 22:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UT:JIMBO

(Protection log); 23:09 . . SB Johnny (talk | contribs) changed protection level of User talk:Jimbo Wales‎ ‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 11:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC))‎[move=sysop] (indefinite) ‎(throttle down, Jimmy has made it pretty clear that he wants IPs to be free to talk on his talk)

Your protection makes it impossible for IPs to edit the page. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For 12 hours, I know. It had been set to indefinite a little earlier, so I shortened it. Changed the move permissions too, because Hagger???? ;-) --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move permission seems sensible. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking an interest in this problem. The banned editor is Mbz1. She's very persistent about hopping to new IPs and is seeking a forum for grandstanding. If she returns, please lengthen the protection. I had shortened it previously, but she came right back so I had to re-protect, and used a longer duration. More eyes on the problem is good. Jehochman ^Talk 01:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem is that if you set it to "indefinite", you never know when it's "worked", and like I mentioned in the log, Jimmy is a big believer in "IP editing and speech". It's easy enough for you to throw the rope up for another 12 hours if she's causing a major problem, though it's often even easier to skip over the R&B and go right to I. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 02:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Jehochman, she says the IP in question isn't her (and is from Germany, etc.), though I agree the style and content certainly resembles hers. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 14:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There're three possibilities: (1) It is her. (2) It is some other editor taking advantage of the situation to act just like her. (3) It's somebody completely unrelated who's acting just like her, but doesn't realize it. Given the lack of trust we have in her, created by her inability to get along with other editors resulting in a ban, and then by her continued violation of editing through her ban, I think her statement has no information value whatsoever. Thank you for keeping an eye on the situation and if there are further similar edits, please respond as you see fit or let me know if you think my response needs to be adjusted so that it would be more effective. I didn't mean to set the protection to indefinite! I had meant to select something like one or two weeks, which is the approximate length of time she's been editing of late. Jehochman ^Talk 17:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nearly certain that it isn't her (lying isn't one of her faults). She feels rather insulted by you accusing her of being this other person (who she doesn't think resembles her at all), so if you can spare a "sorry about that" for her, she'd appreciate it.

(And yes, Jehochman, I originally thought you had gotten the edit and move protection settings backwards, went to fix that, then realized the problem with having that length of protection on that particular page. We all have our senior moments, despite our youthful appearance and vigor.) ;-) --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think she feels insulted that I continue to suck air, and nothing I say will have any benefit. My plan is to ignore her. If she stays away for 6 mos she can then try to come back under the standard offer. I won't object. She needs to let go of the past. Jehochman ^Talk 01:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, that IP was not me. It is in Germany. It is not my style I have never ever ever started a few sections at once as he did.

Jehochman, I do not want to come back, no normal person will ever return to the community which treats human beings as I have been treated.

My situation is special in two ways: 1)I was editing under my real name and 2)I do not want to come back to Wikipedia. I made that mistake once. I will not repeat it. The only reason I am coming back is that I am hurting in the real life. Remove that reason, and I'd be gone for good. I am not looking for a drama, in which my character is getting assassinated by you and others, I am looking for peace and quite in my real life.

Jehochman, I am not an angel, but I have never harassed anybody, and I have never kicked a person who's down. Period.

Now if I may I'd like to give you and Wikipedians some advices please:

Treat people with dignity and kindness. You will achieve much more this way, if you really want somebody to stay away versus punishing a person.
Never make false accusations most of all towards somebody who is not allowed to respond. It is simply incident,Jehochman, and in my situation it violates my BLP.
If you do make an accusation present an evidence and allow a person to respond.
Delete banned users list. It is an absolutely unneeded scarlet letter.
Try to behave first like humans and second like Wikipedians , not the other way around.
Don't impose indefinite blocks.For an established contributor a maximum block duration should not be longer than one year. Here's why:some editors will not return after the block expires. The ones who do return could always be re-blocked, if they don't behave. It takes only a minute to block somebody. On the other hand the arbcom spends days discussing appeals. Besides indefinite blocks create more dramas.This is not rocket science, only common sense.
Don't look for socks of banned users. Let good edits stay. Delete the bad ones. Look at the contributions not at the contributor. Besides as it stands right now Wikipedia has no power to enforce bans. Running after socks only create more drama.
Stop the community bans. It will remove lots of dramas.Besides let me please quote Tarc on the subject of the community bans: "What this sort of thing comes down to is how many supporters you can line up vs. how many opponents they can line up. It's like World of Warcraft, sometimes there's just too many orcs and not enough humans."
And the most important one: The enforcement of any Wikipedia's policy is not nearly as important as well being and health of a person.

And now let's see if you're going to live up to your promise of ignoring me by letting my post to stay. "one of the most uncooperative editors Wikipedia has ever suffered" Mbz1 76.126.32.95 (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And,Jehochman, here's my personal note to you: I will be remembered by thousands of Wikipedia readers who are enjoying my images and learning from them. You'd be remembered by two dozens users who dare to call themselves "the Wikipedia Community". I pity you,Jehochman. And please save your time, stop blocking IPs I am using. How many did you block for the last 5 days and how many more you need to block to understand that there's no use in doing this? You said you'd ignore me, live up to your own promise. 24.6.208.11 (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity

I was wondering if you would like to come back to Wikiversity ;) --Goldenburg111 (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]