User talk:Anythingyouwant: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:02, 9 April 2009

My curiosity is getting the better of me

I have to ask - on what issues are you a left-winger? I am truly curious. Tvoz/talk 21:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly environment-related stuff.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I would have not been able to fall asleep tonight, trying to guess. :) Tvoz/talk 01:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darn! I missed a chance to keep you up at night. :)Ferrylodge (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left-winger, right-winger... they're merely labels in a largely non-useful attempt to classify people and simplify ideas. Unfortunately they tend to do more harm than good. For one, they omit context and depth. Of course everyone has concern for environmental issues... but in what context? To what extent? I think if the term -winger somehow just dropped off the edge of the earth never to be heard from again we'd all be just a little better off. (Sorry, was poking around for gits and shiggles and just had to offer an unsolicited opinion.) JBarta (talk) 08:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you make some good points. Have a good weekend, Jbarta.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Impressed!

Kudos on the great diff pulling prowess! Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion picture

Hi. I certainly don't believe its proper for a picture to be excluded from the article. You seem to have been doing a great job pushing for some balance. The idea that the picture needs consensus to be included is nonsense IMO. It just has to be notable and relevant. I have also added a little bit to the abortion dispute section - which doesn't even say why people are in dispute! Someone has already cut it once, but I have put it back as i think this is essential to the article. Xandar 12:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, and for your interest in the subject. As someone who is 100% for women's equality, I hope that the image will be included so that more women can be aware of the facts.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the abortion picture debate. You have the patience of a saint, I don't know how you do it. I think they are treating you unfairly over there. I mean, look at KillerChihuahua's comments. They let someone like that be an admin? Admire your persistence in the face of these people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.231.118 (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you're not some violent felon posting from prison, but even if you are thanks for the comment. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From NPOV noticeboard

Hi, Ferrylodge. I've watched some of the discussion surrounding the illustration at Abortion. I'm sympathetic to your issues with the article. I used to work on it; you've probably seen me around. What I'm suggesting at the noticeboard is simply a rhetorical point, and I think it might be better to make it here.

So, when you first posted there, someone commented, asking a question, and you replied in two paragraphs - 16 lines on my screen. From your reply, it appears (a) that you are quite emotionally invested in the dispute, (b) that you feel that the article is grossly biased, and (c) that you feel frustrated, having been more than reasonable and accomodating.

I don't know anything about (a), and I'll happily grant (b) and (c), especially for this discussion. However, I think that 99% of potential conversation partners, seeing all that in the opening exchange, will make their excuses, get up, and walk away. That's IRL; online it'll be 99.99%. I'm not claiming that's cool, or anything like that. I just think it's true, and I'm not sure you're taking it into account. I think you might be overwhelming people.

You're working on one of the project's most difficult pages, and you've been doing it tirelessly (or so it seems) for a long time. Major kudos for that, but keep in mind that most Wikipedians aren't used to kitchens that hot. A lot of Wikipedians, when they see someone working at that temperature, assume that the person is a fanatical POV-warrior about to explode, and they shy away. I'm not saying that's a valid conclusion, but I think it's one that a lot of people will come to.

The only reason I say any of this is the hope that you might find it helpful. If you want to discuss, I'll discuss. If you don't appreciate my observations, I'll leave without being offended. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not offended at all. Thanks for the comments, and I do appreciate them. I do remember you, in a good way. A teacher in Seattle, if I vaguely recall correctly? We went around quite a bit regarding the opening paragraph.

The subject of abortion is indeed toxic, and it is difficult to discuss it in a way that is completely cool and detached. I try hard to do that, but do not always succeed. I suppose that one of the most difficult things in the world to do is to convey a sense of legitimate outrage related to a toxic subject, while coming across as cool and detached. And I am outraged by the slant in that Wikipedia article.

My comment to which you objected at the NPOV noticeboard was longer than the question, that's true. I wanted to give the questioner a thorough answer. The questioner asked what reliable sources do, asked whether they typically include this type of image, and asked if it is the sort of thing that is usually only found in "anti-abortion" literature. So I answered point-by-point with specific examples and cites. Some questioners might feel complimented by the fact that their questions were considered seriously and answered directly and fully, but evidently that didn't happen here.

My comment ended with an exclamation point, and I thought about that before I did it. It wasn't screaming bold allcaps, but just an exclamation point. I did not want to pretend that I did not feel strongly, and that's what exclamation points are for. If I had used a period instead of an exclamation point, I think the comment would have failed to convey a sense of outrage; the comment might have attracted more response from people who don't want to deal with a toxic subject, but it also might have attracted less interest since people would not see the flashing red light of someone with a huge concern. This subject is pretty much lose-lose in that sense. No matter what one says, it's a toxic subject that many people (with good reason) would like to avoid, and/or would like to find an excuse to avoid. Maybe I could handle it better.

As far as being a fanatical POV-warrior, I've tried to make it clear that I'm 100% for womens' equality, and 100% in favor of a woman's statutory right to abort an embryo for any reason. At the same time, I don't think that Wikipedia should present pro-choice propaganda, and I have found that the only way to make any headway against that is by being very persistent. If that leads people to think that I'm a fanatical POV-warrior about to explode, then it's more their problem than mine. But I agree with you that people come to that assumption a lot, often steered there by others who are less than neutral IMHO.

I pretty much stayed away from the abortion article for a year or so, but now I'm back, for a little while at least. I almost got totally banned from Wikipedia merely for (in my view) seeking some neutrality at that article. I'd like to finish the unfinished business, and at least demonstrate that many other editors also find the article skewed.

I apologize if this reply is too long, and also apologize for rewriting it. Any further discussion about this would be welcome, but I won't be offended if you'd like to pass. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now a teacher in Texas, who kind of misses Seattle. I lived on the Ave there, upstairs from food of eight nations, and across the street from a weekly farmer's market. Mmmm...

Anyway, I'm glad to be working with you on that article. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of miss it too. I was initially in grad student housing, and ended up at Greenlake. I miss Red Square, with its view of Mt. Ranier and the statue of George Washington with his sword. I felt kind of like I let George down by quitting grad school there, but I'm still working on a few physics ideas that may turn a few heads. :-) I liked Portland, Oregon better than Seattle. Never been to Texas, except for maybe a stop at an airport. I hear Austin is really nice. I'm in Connecticut. And, thanks for working at that article. It's miserable, but maybe something good will come of it.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something occurs to me, regarding the conversation we were having the other day at the clubhouse. At some point, the autofellatio article didn't have a picture, and there was a recurring call to add one. Finally, a consensus emerged to add one behind a hide/show box, or something equivalent. Apparently, after enough of us were accustomed to having the picture there behind the link, people started (or continued) asking what the point was in hiding it. Now, the picture is right there at the top. So, the illustration you're looking for might be heading down that same slippery slope. They say information wants to be free, so maybe opening the door a crack will do more than it seems.

Now, having typed "abortion," "autofellatio," and "same slippery slope" all in one paragraph, I think I have to wash my hands.

One more thing, though: I've been taking an informal survey of my friends, who are all good liberals, libertarians and loonies — almost universally pro-choice. When I ask the question, their first reaction is to run through a series of facial expressions indicating that they appreciate the difficultyies. Then, so far every one of them has said... that they think we have to have an image. They don't seem altogether happy about it, but they agree that an encyclopedia is supposed to be where people can go to find out. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we can work something out so the image is included, with or without the hide-and-show. Maybe we can get it resolved over the weekend. A lot of the commenters in the RFC were "pro-choice" too.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotta say that, for such a difficult topic, the level of discourse on that page is really impressive. Nobody seems to be shouting or calling names. It hasn't always been like that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Feerylodge, Please be aware that you have technically violated 3rr on the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. I don't plan to report you, and do wish nobody else does so either. But I hope you realize that you are unnecessarily presenting yourself as a juicy target while editing in an area of partisan interest and raised passions. (Hope you take this friendly nudge in the spirit it is intended.). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning. You are correct that I need to be careful, and I will be more careful. However, I have not violated 3RR. I made four edits today. The one at 16:29 inserted a quote that was not previously in this article. The one at 17:47 inserted another quote that was not previously in the article. The one at 18:05 reinserted deleted material, but without quote marks, after an IP edit summary that said “no such quote”. The one at 18:23 inserted new material. Which of these do you consider reverts? I'm genuinely curious, because I do not want to violate 3RR in the future, and I didn't think I did here. Maybe I was mistaken, and if so I'd like to learn why.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually intend my message to be a "warning" (too ominous! :) ), and you are probably right that I miscounted the number of reverts based on edit-summaries. Looking at the edits again, and the broad definition of "reverts" given in WP:3RR, I would consider only the 2nd and 3rd (and arguably 4th) edits as reverts.

That said, in this area it would be prudent not to leave matters to differences of interpretations and judgments. Again, this is somewhat generic (and perhaps, unneeded) advice and not a specific comment on the recent edits. Happy editing. Abecedare (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also please recall that edit warring can lead to a block whether or not the 3RR is technically violated. Revert counters are not immune to being blocked for violating EW. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not counting reverts, because I did not think any of my edits was a revert. But thanks anyway for the advice. Feel free to opine here about whether you think they were reverts, and if so why.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What, me? No thanks - I was merely posting a reminder here. Unless you're concerned you might have come closer to the 3RR than you thought, and want a second opinion? If that is the case, I suggest asking someone else. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Code

I'm tinkering with it. I've never done one of these before, but I know a bit about coding. Regarding the policy citation, yeah. I know about that, but it's pages like this one that eventually determine policy, not the other way around. I don't think a hide/show box will go in the article without the right discussions happening. Meanwhile, it's a potential compromise that might bring something out in the debate. Maybe this will turn out to be a useful question to ask, even if the answer is no. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The policy says it's okay in an infobox, so the thing I made seems consistent with the policy. Anyway, I'll be curious to see what you come up with.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know... there's something fishy in there, but I'd have to study the code to figure it out. Notice in the paragraph from the MOS, that the spacing right after the link doesn't work. If you add a header before the text, it works again. That tells me that some kind of code is spilling out of the box and interfering with the text that follows it. Just counting curly brackets, I can't see what's wrong, at least not now. I'm actually done for the night, but I'm interested, and I'll look at it tomorrow, probably in the afternoon. Good evening. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed.[1]Ferrylodge (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this make sense to you?

Something you said on my page... "I'm not suggesting it's absolute; I just think that there are benfits to accessability, readability, and printing if the hide-show is done in an infobox." Do you know what those benefits are, exactly? I mean, do you know what's behind the phrase "accessibility, readability and printing", and what it is about infoboxes that makes them ok? I find it bothering me that that's just a "black box", as far as my understanding of the situation goes. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfotunately, I've got to run right now. It's TGIF and off to the bar with my friends. :-) This stuff has been discussed before, though I have not yet read through the discussions. Here's a list of such discussions. It appears that Sandy Georgia might know a lot about this. I'll ask for her input, but then I have to go for awhile. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)I'm back. Presumably, hide-and-show in the article text has similar problems to scrolling references. There was a formal discussion about scrolling references here. Problems include:

1. Lack of uniformity between pages - seemingly random pages have been "selected" by their editors and have scrolling reflists.
2. Pages cannot be printed - scrolling reference lists stop users from being able to print the page to paper.
3. Problems with browsers - scrolling reference lists use very strange HTML formatting and some browsers do not display them properly. See [here] for a scrolling reference list which has issues with Firefox.
4. Problems with wiki mirrors not reading refs.
5. Accessibility issues with multiple scrolling divs.

Ferrylodge (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are all issues about scrolling reference lists. I see that. I still don't know the answer to my question. Do you understand what it is I'm asking? (1) is clearly irrelevant. (2) seems irrelevant, unless we know that toggle boxes share that specific feature with scrolling lists. (3) Begs the question - do toggle boxes use that same HTML? (4) is clearly irrelevant. (5) is unclear insofar as it's relevant, and irrelevant insofar as it's clear.

I'm concerned that you don't know what I'm asking. I'm looking for very specific, clear understanding — a "full" understanding — as to why a toggle box of an image would be a technical problem in the abortion article. Do you see what's lacking? Do you know why I'm asking? Is this pointless? -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should ask that at the talk page of WP:ACCESS, where Graham87 (talk · contribs) will let you know how screen readers deal with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I'll check there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that in the case of an image in the infobox in the lead, we don't care about mirroring, we don't care about printing, so accessibility is the only potential issue. (Other than the big picture here, where the "Wiki is not censored" crowd will prevail as soon as they get wind of this anyway.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not censored as long as they like it. But try to work in the slightest mention into the abortion article about what is aborted, and it's taboo. We're suggesting a collapsible image to include stuff, instead of letting it be excluded entirely. See here.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked that guy what he thinks of an image in the abortion article? If you would prefer the image at abortion to not be hidden, then why do you feel differently about the autofellatio image? -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I have made one edit in my life to the autofellatio article, and will be very happy to make no more. I was just trying to tell them that they have options. As far as why I would prefer not to use a hidden box at the abortion article, I agree with Kotra.[2] Also, please note that there is a drawing at autofellatio, and I never remotely suggested hiding it in a box. Anyhoo, I still look forward to working with you to try to get the box included in the abortion article, either at the top, or in the appropriate section, so that the info will not be completely censored. I haven't suggested that any info be completely censored at the autofellatio article. By the way, yuck!Ferrylodge (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no worries. I'm not accusing you of anything. I probably will ask that guy what he thinks about the abortion article. Meanwhile, I've been reading, and I'm finding my way to the answer to one of the questions I was just asking, just before SandyGeorgia arrived. From Wikipedia:Accessibility#Images, I see no reason why a toggling image would be a problem. There's one bit about information that requires physical movement to see, but anyone who can select links can select a "show" link, I imagine. I'm gong to make sure of that, and then I don't see any technical hurdles in the way. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The key thing, still, is to know how screen readers process them (my limited understanding is that they need a caption, so I don't know what they would do with a hide box). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression that images are to be supplied with "alt text", which screen readers use to replace the image. As long as the code is written so that the toggling aspect could be separated from the screen reader's ability to access alt text, I don't see why it would be a problem.

I'm going to ask at WT:ACCESS, anyhow. I've just now been asking something else there, about the title of the article Teitur Thordarson.go on, click on it How do screen readers handle that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no understanding of screen readers; I just wait for Graham to answer :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autofellatio

Re: this. Excellent edit! That is a very good option for showing the image. I think it could additionally be wrapped in a divbox, or the like, that has an "Explicit image" type warning on it. fr33kman -s- 23:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hope others like it too.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good option. We've had a bit of an issue with images like this on simple: due to the number of kids that read us, this could be a solution! Cheers :) fr33kman -s- 23:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden box issues

Did you get that issue sorted? I was very busy the other day when you inquired, and I just now clicked on your link to User:Ferrylodge/HideImageInInfobox; I'm not entirely sure what/why you're asking, or what the proposal is there relating to hiding infoboxes? (By the way, that article has a lot of image placement issues; have a look at WP:MOS#Images and WP:ACCESS about the placement of images within sections.) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right (for gosh sakes); I read up on the rest of your page and see some of the issues now. Hiding info in infoboxes is different than hiding info in text. Maralia gave a more complete answer on the MOS talk thread. (And some of those links above make me wonder why I'm "working" here.) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A love note from Lucy

File:Lucyflowers.jpg		Lucy's April Fools 2009 Barnstar
		For your generous assistance in making sure Museum of Bad Art is the highest quality possible in a very short amount of time, I bestow this lovely rendition of Lucy in the Field With Flowers. May Lucy watch over all your edits to inspire such beauty, attention to detail, and overall appreciation for aesthetics. --Moni3 (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is by far the most assistance I have ever had in the all the articles I have written. It was surprising and challenging. Time will tell if I think it's much better than doing it all by myself, but indeed — no more will I complain that I have to do everything by myself. Will you help the next time I have to write an article with 35 book-length sources and 80k of prose? I'll take that as a yes... --Moni3 (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Moni3! :-)

Just let me know if I can be of assistance, in which case I will charge in and do as I please again! :) If it's any consolation, I did the same thing to Raul at Surrender of Japan earlier this month. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement

You know, the Emperor Caligula used to delight in starting rumors of his own death. He'd then stay in hiding for a day or two, and his agents would take note of who was celebrating, or relieved, or insufficiently sad at his purported passing. He found this a useful and amusing means of drawing people out. Of course, historians generally agree that Caligula had, at best, a warped sense of humor and was deeply unsuitable as a role model. :P And for what it's worth, I'm sorry that your efforts at autofellatio were unsuccessful. Keep trying. Happy April Fools' Day. :) MastCell ^Talk 21:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, FL made an effort at autofellatio? I believe the term is TMI. :-) --Ali'i 21:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Happy AF Day to you guys too. :-) I'm glad you liked the hide-and-show box, Mastcell; I’m sure Caligula couldn’t have written such clever code, though he might have approved of it during the noble early years of his reign. Unfortunately, my ploy earlier today turned up no Tiberius Gemellus!

Don't hold the Schiavo thing against me. You were right about synthesis. Live and learn. I still have doubts about using such a primary source image, though.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Water under the bridge. MastCell ^Talk 03:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One week ban from Sarah Palin

Ferry lodge, I am banning you from this article and talk page for one week, as you have disregarded the injunction by me, seconded by other editors, to not derail the KAB discussion and instead have persistently eaten up time and bandwidth on your pet edits. I asked you to wait; I warned you; I issued a final warning; I explained and reiterated the rationale; and you're still taking up everyone's time and derailing a difficult discussion which everyone else on this page is working very hard on. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am watching this page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::KC, speaking bluntly, you are the admin at WP most desperately in need of admin training. I consider your attitude toward me to be a continuation of harassment that has been going on for more then a year, when you attempted unsuccessfully (and unjustifiably) to have me banned from Wikipedia.[3] Your behavior continues to be disgraceful. You may respond to this comment at your talk page, but not at mine.

You followed me to the Sarah Palin article months ago. You jammed material into that article against overwhelming consensus, insinuating that Palin was cruel to rape victims, and you would not relent until after the presidential election.[4] You recently threatened me with a ban for violating edicts that you had not yet issued, you continue to pretend to be uninvolved when you are massively involved, you cite commands without bothering to provide diffs, you mischaracterize the edits of other editors, you protect an article section only after demanding that it be revrted to your right version, et cetera.
The talk page edits that you deem irrelevant at the Sarah Palin article were extremely relevant to Knik Arm Bridge, and everyone knows it. And everyone knows they contradicted your assertion that there was a single earmark for the two bridges (Gravina and Knik). 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."[5] My suggested edits were on precisely this topic.[6] 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.
~~Your harassment of me has also continued at the abortion article, where you recently insinuated (preposterously) that I cannot "comprehend" obvious facts.[7]~~

I consider it an honor to blocked by you, if that will serve to differentiate my editing habits from yours. I plan to delete this talk page section at the end of the day, and would kindly ask for you to NEVER post at this talk page again, except to the extent absolutely required by Wikipedia rules, or to unblock. And I sincerely hope that means I will never see you posting at this talk page again, EVER. Be gone. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do have the option to appeal the ban on AN/I, you know. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time right now. Do you have any idea of the hundreds of hours of my time that KC has already gobbled up over the years?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do. That's why I suggested the appeal. You just aren't doing yourself any favors going off on her on your talk page. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll do it, even though I don't have time. Thanks for the advice.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Next time...

Send me an email before things get quite so heated, please. While you certainly weren't the only dog fighting there, you weren't really helping much to cool things down, and you have a bit of a record (deservedly or not). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, please respond on my talk... my watchlist runneth amok and I'm pretty busy :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rule Change

KC has agreed to lift the ban on the talk page, but I'm imposing an indef ban on the actual article, as we discussed via email. If it's OK with you, I think it would be better if we continued to correspond via email, agreed?

For the benefit of those who are watching from the galleries, I want to work with Ferrylodge to try to see why some folks aren't willing to Assume Good Faith on his part, and see if there's something to be done to improve that situation. I've also asked both KC and FL to try to avoid dancing near one another's toes for a while. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks, I guess.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lifted

As per our discussions over the past several days. Please bear in mind the worst case scenario when it comes to how an edit will be perceived, and it should all be fine :-). If in doubt, ping me on my talk, email, or otherwise before risking the worst case. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks very much for spending the time on this. Of course, the worst case scenario is that every edit I make will be perceived as a personal affront and part of a dastardly plot. Not much I can do about that, but will try. As I've already said, I don't think the article ban was justified in the least. Thanks for getting it lifted.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's the worst case scenario. For the record: after looking into it, asking around, and thinking about it, I think the article ban was inappropriate. Thanks for your patience. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Diseases that cause abortion

@@ Line 200: / Line 200: @@
 As per our discussions over the past several days. Please bear in mind the worst case scenario when it comes to how an edit will be perceived, and it should all be fine :-). If in doubt, ping me on my talk, email, or otherwise before risking the worst case. --[[User talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">'''SB_Johnny'''</font>]] | <sup>[[User_talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">talk</font>]]</sup> 10:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 ::OK, thanks very much for spending the time on this.  Of course, the worst case scenario is that every edit I make will be perceived as a personal affront and part of a dastardly plot.  Not much I can do about that, but will try. As I've already said, I don't think the article ban was justified in the least.  Thanks for getting it lifted.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge#top|talk]]) 15:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
+:::Yep, that's the worst case scenario. For the record: after looking into it, asking around, and thinking about it, I think the article ban was inappropriate. Thanks for your patience. --[[User talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">'''SB_Johnny'''</font>]] | <sup>[[User_talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">talk</font>]]</sup> 00:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 ==CfD nomination of [[:Category:Diseases that cause abortion]]==