Welcome to Wikipedia, Fcreid! I am Burner0718 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 22:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because some have insinuated otherwise, here I am. I have been in the computer and telecommunications industry for 33 years (long before they were the same business). I retired as a Naval officer in the mid-90s after twenty years in service. Today, I design "command and control" systems (some IP, some not) for multiple government agencies. In that role, I orchestrate teams of developers, engineers and technicians in providing worldwide support for systems. I consider myself fluent in C and an expert in many operating systems, networking technologies and other computer stuff.

I have a dedicated wife whom I met and married in Puerto Rico 28 years ago. We have two wonderful children. My daughter is a graduate of Maine College of Art. Along with her art,[1] my daughter pays her bills as a business developer in the greater Washington, DC area for a variety of corporate clients. My son graduates soon from University of Maryland with degrees in mathematics and physics. He and his beautiful young bride will live in Vancouver, BC where she teaches Montessori and he starts his career with a chemical engineering firm.

Political topics usually interest me very little. In the political spectrum, I guess I would be labeled a fiscal conservative and social liberal. I support safe abortions, I loathe handguns, I defend one's right to be homosexual--you know the stuff I mean--but I deeply believe in the free market. I believe government's role must be limited to enforcing our laws and providing only those services that are inherently governmental and necessary to perform. I know that is a moving target that evolves with society. For example, it is probably now time that government intervenes to assume the aggregate of health care management. By the same token, it may now also be time that government gets out of the education business before it cripples another generation.

I am a pretty one-dimensional computer guy, but I do write a lot to pay my bills. I have no association with anyone involved in any level of politics. I have no vested interest in the outcome of the upcoming election, with the possible exception that my success in life makes me a "bad guy" on Obama's checklist, and he must therefore usurp my choice of charitable contributions to support his choice of charities. So be it. The local DC food banks will do without next holiday season, but hopefully someone else does with. In any case, I don't get worked up about that... and you shouldn't, either!

Fcreid (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Sarah Palin appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Please respect the wikipedia Neutral point of view. creaɯy!^Talk 23:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I believe you're mistaken. I checked the article history, and I don't see that I ever edited the main article, but rather built consensus for change on the talk page. Thanks, though. Fcreid (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are a very naughty boy. I like. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeedy. Your contribs to the Palin discussion are hilarious! Keep it up. — Writegeist (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make me laugh!--Buster7 (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I try. Anyone who takes politics so seriously that it corrupts the ability to make friends and not enemies really needs a good laugh now and then! Fcreid (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Palin dicussion contribs just get funnier and funnier; particularly the way you pretend to misunderstand the glaringly obvious just to pick an argument! Ha ha ha! No wonder you're proud of yourself. Well done! — Writegeist (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I were being disingenous, but I actually am that thick on many things. I don't follow politics closely, and I am at a great disadvantage to those here who do. I do credit myself as being a pretty good judge of character, though. Fcreid (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta love the pose of naivety and the claim to good judgement! Yes, funnier and still funnier. Oh my ribs. Are you David Brent? Or some other fictional character? (This being a fictional encyclopedia and all.) — Writegeist (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who David Brent is, and I probably don't care! :) Just because one doesn't follow politics closely does not necessarily mean one cannot be a critical thinker. I know there are those whose entire worlds revolve around politics, but I've found more from life than living vicariously in other's bureaucracies. It's all the same shit sandwich in the end, my friend. Fcreid (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...no idea who David Brent is...one doesn't follow politics...one cannot be a critical thinker...living vicariously in...[a] shit sandwich..." -- oy, such a gift for comedy, and it's just what one's rather serious discussion of one's Sarah Palin article needs! - Writegeist (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've come to bore me, Writegeist. Move along. Fcreid (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, After taking into consideration the feedback from other editors regarding the Carson City image at Sarah Palin, I have created a new version with the intent of pleasing those who have contributed to the discussions. The quality of the image has been significantly improved. I would appreciate your opinion here: [[2]]. Thanks, IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your message on my talk page and I've responded there. JamesMLane t c 01:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. your latest on the SP talk page.

I'm sorry to see your usual good humor failing you. One (!) can only hope it's a temporary glitch. Meanwhile your wit will be sorely missed I'm sure. However, now that you're in a serious mood this might be a good time to check out WP:SPA, WP:SOCKS, WP:NPOV and WP:POVPUSH.

It would be civil (please see WP:Civility) to withdraw your false accusation that Fourtyearswhat is an SPA. The "Fourtyearswhat" account may be many things, but an SPA is not one of them. Far from it in fact: a total of 17 contributions (admittedly not all, ahem, constructive) ranging over 14 different subjects. For comparison, Fcreid's total of 135+ contributions are all to do with Sarah Palin, and (almost?) all on the SP article(s) talk pages (i.e. not contributions to the articles), where they make manifest the single purpose of the "Fcreid" account.

The references to "polish" and "tarnish" are lost on me, I'm sorry to say. Something to do with pots and kettles?

Thank you for the thoughtful exhortation to hike. It so happens that I rather like a good hike, not least for the way it broadens one's (!) horizons. Getting out more might help broaden yours too? WP has lots of other discussion pages that would benefit from your oh-so dry wit if you could bear, just now and then, to delegate other loyal worthies to stand watch over la Palin's virtue while you briefly absent yourself from its defence. Dare we hope for a pithy line or two about hot oil wrestling in the talk page of that Women's Extreme Wrestling article, perchance? It would be a laudable start. All the best as always. — Writegeist (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your sincere attempt to introduce me to new horizons. My wife also tries that now and again, with mixed success. Anyway, I'm quite happy where I am. For the time-being at least, it's where chivalry and honor are most sorely needed. Fcreid (talk) 04:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, continuing on our serious note, your insinuations of my account being WP:SPA and WP:SOCKS are way off-base. I've been around the Internet a really long time, but this is my first and only account on WP. You'll find I'm "fcreid" everywhere. In fact, that is my name--Frank C. Reid. You'll see me mentioned here [3] for programming I did around 20 years ago with BBS software, and you're welcome to drop by any of the systems I host if they are of any value to you. I've watched and respected WP as it matured, and I've always regarded it as a useful tool for finding a quick unit of measure or to figure out what bee is nesting in my sauna. However, it's laughable for anything topical or political, as the model favors dominance by whatever Kollege Kult is in vogue or whatever legion of late-night basement dwellers have the most stamina. When I first visited the Palin article, that was no exception, but I figured I'd actually try to make the model work this time. Fcreid (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not an "insinuation" about "Fcreid" being an SPA. It's a statement of fact, corroborated by the statistics already cited re. the account's single-purpose contributions.
• I don't know whether or not "Fcreid" is a sockpuppet. It's plausible. For all I know you, whoever you are, could have seen the name elsewhere on the Gorenet (particularly in light of your claim that it has been "everywhere" for "a really long time") and used it to name a sockpuppet account. There's always a possibility of sockpuppetry where SPAs are concerned. Please see WP:SPA again: While a new user [new user "Fcreid" for example] who immediately participates in a discussion without an edit history [again, new user "Fcreid" for example] may be an illegitimate sock puppet, it remains possible that a new user’s contributions are alternatively the product of a disinterested third party wishing to improve the Wikipedia project [e.g. as "Fcreid" claims]. For this reason, statements regarding motives are not recommended without an examination of the user's edit history [such as the examination of "Fcreid"'s edit history cited above]. The term should be used descriptively and should not be read pejoratively unless a specific non-neutral agenda is clearly established. IMHO an edit history totalling 135+ contributions, all confined to Sarah Palin article discussion pages and all promoting her candidature, clearly establishes a specific non-neutral agenda. Accordingly I invite you to interpret my use of the term "SPA" as a pejorative description of the "Fcreid" account; and also to revisit WP:NPOV and WP:POVPUSH.
• "[WP] is laughable for anything topical or political...": couldn't agree more.
• "Chivalry and honor": great to see you got your sense of humor back so fast! All is well! Quick, add the hot oil wrestling info and/or photo(s)!

Rest assured, I sincerely enjoy your contributions re. la Palin and find them genuinely amusing. Whether that's because or in spite of the fact that "Fcreid" is an SPA I don't know and don't care. (Please note there are no remonstrations, much less the officiousness SPA's can encounter here, in my responses. Just good-natured joshing.) All the best, Writegeist (talk) 08:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm afraid I hail from a background where chivalry and honor matter, whether that person is next in line at checkout or a VP candidate for the U.S. Clearly, for many that is not the case. As far as WP's suitability for political topics... WP has (or had, at least) been at the top of the search for this person. That is an obvious byproduct of its many areas where it actually has credibility. I came to the SP article for exactly that reason, having not heard of her prior to the majority of the world. What I found was simply an assault to my senses. Whether Palin is the only article to which I ever contribute is really none of your business, and given the hostility, self-righteousness and abundance of those who overestimate their own worth, it may well be. That not withstanding, if you know of any articles that might benefit from my participation, you're welcome to make suggestions. Unfortunately, not many things interest me beyond computers, and those things I do best (and for pay) are beyond the scope of what I could share publicly (and what would be of interest to most people). Fcreid (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I'll share another of my secrets with you, Writegeist. There's a 95% probability you're not nearly as snarky in real life as you present yourself here. If you'd have pulled the threads I've provided, you'd have realized I was among the pioneers of our "online world" today, beginning more than 25 years ago. I have extensive experience assessing behavior in such environments to ascertain personality from that, particularly as those manifest in worlds of perceived anonymity. Judging from your behavior and interests, I'd venture to say my credentials in this area not only exceed your exposure to online existence but also may exceed your exposure to life itself. Fcreid (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the place you claim for yourself "among the pioneers of our 'online world today'" counts for nothing on WP and is irrelevant to our discussion. On WP an editor's worth is measured by the value of his or her contributions to this common wealth of encyclopedic information. (Yup, you and I both have a long, long way to go!)

As for your "credentials" exceeding another editor's "exposure to online existence...[and] to life itself", I respectfully suggest a moment's reflection on your own declared distaste for "self-righteousness and...those who overestimate their own worth."

Finally, back to your record of blocking any info that might be deemed less than wholly beneficial to SP's candidacy: IMHO it's pretty strong evidence of pushing that SPA agenda. Which is fine and dandy by me, so long as the agenda is acknowledged. As indeed it is, now.

"In the midst of the word he was trying to say,

In the midst of the laughter and glee,

He had softly and suddenly vanished away—

For the Snark was a Boojum, you see."

Best wishes as always - Writegeist (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a WP n00b, Writegeist. Do you know if there's anything like an <ignore> option available to screen out harrassing or annoying users? Fcreid (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have you beat slightly -- I was a wizop on CompuServe from 1982 until they pulled plugs. My initial computer experience dates from the 60s at MIT. And I also believe in chivalry and honor. Some apparently don't. You may have fun examining "pet phrases" which I have used over many years to identify sockpuppets on CompuServe. Also make sure you look at talk pages for some interesting insights into how people suddenly appear to back their friends sometimes. WP is a very political world! Thanks! Dave Collect (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, you sure do! I did some FORTRAN programming during my college days in the 70s, but only as it related to my math courses. I didn't bring my first BBS online until 1984 in Jacksonville, FL with a screaming 300-baud modem and whopping 10MB hard disk. I was an active CompuServe member, though. I can't even tally how much of my meager income then went to "You Guessed It!", their online multiplayer trivia game. My wife and I where hooked on that (at $5/hour on top of the connect charges). It's funny. Recently, she found a little visor with the YGI logo on it while going through some old boxes in the garage! Fcreid (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for what it's worth, I actually still run that original software (WWIV BBS) via telnet on my network. [4] There are even a few old Fidonet dinosaurs in the DC area still connecting to me via modem to participate in the network. All the primary mail movement now is via IP. It still has its interesting points though, and it's certainly not as overwhelming (and occasionally unfriendly) as the Internet at-large! :) Fcreid (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may interrupt this cute love-fest for a moment. Fcreid, you asked "Do you know if there's anything like an <ignore> option available to screen out harrassing or annoying users?" Yes I do.

Now back to Brokegeek Mountain. Big smooch — Writegeist (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

First languages were MAD and FAP (PL/1 came out later). BTW, have you noticed new faces suddenly appearing in Palin to take over everything? If you remember sockpuppetry from the BBS days, I don't think they are sockpuppets, but they definitely are communicating outside the Talk page. You probably should look up the "search" page on WP -- it is amazing what you can find! Thanks. Dave Collect (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I have no dog in the hunt, and my neophyte status keeps me on the bench. Fcreid (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeedy Dave Collect. Young Trig boasted of being a priest in the church of McCain. If he's to be believed, this makes sense of his polishing the golden calf in timely preparation for the idolatry. The "Ferrylodge" account had already started dusting off the calf a couple of months earlier, on 01 July. Flip through the account's contribs history. Thousands of edits pro McCain, Palin et al. A full-time GOP stooge. And now a whole new, er, surge of stooges (a spin of stooges? A slant? A shift? A shambles?) is showing up to do their puppetmasters' (and -mistresses') bidding. No doubt Dummycrat stooges and stoogettes have also infiltrated. Let's hope the contributors who most consistently demonstrate intellectual rigor will prevail in their efforts to keep the article(s) up to snuff. - Writegeist (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WG, I think you may be stalking me -- vide Talk: Prescott Bush. Kindly cease. Collect (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon? You flatter yourself. Please see your talk page. — Writegeist (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your effort to maintain peace and equilibrium at the Palin article. Your words helped to calm the savage beast and to focus on moving forward. Bedankdt..--Buster7 (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That means a lot to me. Unfortunately, I think several people do not agree with you. I can understand it when many very new editors come to Wikipedia and just do not understand our policies, but it is disappointing when people who have done good work on other articles really can't see how the old standby's, NPOV, NOR, V, all apply to this as they do to any other article and we work best when we focus most on just complying with policies than with producing some preconceived idea of what we personally want to read ... sorry to rant a bit. I really am trying just to get people to think of it in terms of policy. I think there has been some progress, let's hope there will be a lot more to come! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I am glad you do not think it was overdone. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've been a refreshing voice of reason in the madhouse of Talk:Sarah Palin. I'm sorry to hear that you'll be leaving, but completely understand you're reason. Zaereth (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now, Reason (cap R when it's a name, surely?), you're back already! I knew you'd feel better after a tiny rest and a nice cup of tea. Or was it warm milk in your favorite cup? I forget. Anyway, welcome once more to the fray. — Writegeist (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your last edit to the Talk:Sarah Palin where you made disparaging remarks about Mr. Stambaugh. Please note that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well as articles. You are certainly free to criticize the way his firing is covered in the Palin article, but that does not extend to your calling him names. I realize that talk discussions can get heated, but please be more careful in the future.--agr (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely correct, and it was entirely inappropriate out of frustration on my part. Thanks. Fcreid (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it my imagination, or is T:SP now turning into an unstructured stream of consciousness exercise for the ones who want everything including the kitchen sink placed in the article? Collect (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good sign that it's happening on talk and not in the article itself! They pulled the scabs off all my wounds today, though! Fcreid (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - it is good to be back! I have been dealing with a serious crisis on my user page among other places. Anything going on I should be attentive to? KI still believe that there is a way to write a sober NPOV article on a person of controversy (and frankly, I think the Palin article is pretty good all things considered!!) Slrubenstein | Talk 00:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are the chances of clothing costs being mentioned, if McCain's running-mate had been Pawlenty or Romney (for example). Let's look on the bright side, there's only 12-days to go. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please send me a link to the new poll numbers and I'll be happy to update it (that is, providing that my time won't be wasted when other users decide to continue deleting it all over again).LMRusso (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The fact that you didn't know about the newer poll indicates you aren't interested in the value of the data itself, but instead are trying to insert a commentary that affirms some positions you hold." Give me a break. Just b/c I didn't come across it as of yet does NOT conclude any such thing. Y'know, I was trying to work with you, but here you truly betray a level of irrationality I wasn't expecting. First of all not including the very latest poll data does not invalidate the previous poll data. At the same time I agree that more recent poll numbers should be included and am happy to add it -all I asked was for a link. If you don't have it, fine, I'll look it up- you don't have to get all bent out of shape about it.LMRusso (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a follow up, a while back I found the newer poll numbers and tried to add it only to find the whole section deleted by Malke, Bonewah or one of the other right wing censors of the page. I tried to fight it only to be outnumbered and unable to commit the time to continue fighting. I come back today to see my original paragraph not only gone, but replaced with data from 2008 with the perspective of her being viewed as Barbara Walters/ABC's "10 most fascinating people". 2008? Where's your objection to dated info here? Are you telling me there's no double standard amongst this page's "editors" when it comes to positive data vs. negative data?

I know WP is not supposed to be about winning, but I give up. You, Malke & Bonewah win. Unfortunately, IMHO, WP's credibility loses.LMRusso (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind note. I'm not sure that my demeanor is always calm, or my presence always welcome, but I've been around long enough to have get a sense of the place. Once the election is over I encourage you to stick around and contribute. There is no end to the work to be done around here. ;) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to the agitation level, you have hit the nail on the head. For the most part, I have appreciated your input. I havent agreed, but at least your demeanor was consistent. We both have a problem with sarcasm which is a difficult (and as my wife likes to tell me, a dishonest) means of communication. It usually doesnt work as well here as in face to face talk. Anyway, I think I will take your advice and vacation in Belgium for the next two weeks. Being on the other side of the aisle, but fair-minded, I ask that you inform me of any important goings on....canvassing (lol)....consensus formation (more lol)....a humorous tetete. Thanks--Buster7 (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bet you the bar tab that you wouldn't be able to guess the side of the aisle where I sit! :) Fcreid (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was hilarious. Kudos for making me laugh. If I come across any gubernatorial pics, I will send them along. Now, back to the trenches!Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't talk about politics much in real life either, mainly because (surprise?) I disagree with pretty much everyone everywhere in the political spectrum, from friends to family to total strangers. It's a lonely place to be :O Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that no mention had been made of Palin's amazing abiltiy to read "all the newspapers" and "all the magazines". I'm still trying to get thru last month's MAD magazine. I would bring this into discussion but I'm supposed to be on hiatus. But, as you mentioned b4, Sara is a drug!!! I need my daily fix!!!!--Buster7 (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually be more proud of her if she didn't read *any* of them! They're all crap anyway, and today at least just represent the chanting of an angry mob! She also probably has access to much more objective data released in the form of "cables". Fcreid (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your notariety grows daily. You are already reknowned as a "Crapologist of the First Order"...now I hear that your most recent title is "Moon Cheese-ologist". --Buster7 (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Words matter! :) Fcreid (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My intentions were to create a chuckle, perhaps a chortle. Sorry if they didn't...no harm intended!--Buster7 (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Cubs fan. The pain is unbearable at times. I would no more consider watching the "fillies" win the Whirrled Series than I would....um.....a......consider Collect a good faith editor...:')....--Buster7 (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been waiting since 1951 (6 years old)...I guess I can wait another 50 years!!!!--Buster7 (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Fcreid. Cannot do the citation research just yet. Putting out fires. Threeafterthree has AGAIN, without any discussion in the edit summary or the talk page, reverted back Collect's deletion (made without any comment on the talk page) that you and I both oppose. Perhaps you could revert it back this time? I think it's very hard to justify removing a six-word sentence on Palin's current support for the Knik Arm Bridge in an biography on Palin in a section on the Knik Arm Bridge. It's one thing to remove an exhaustive list of pluses and minuses and quite another to remove her position entirely. Would you mind reverting that change? If you don't, I will, of course.

But this stuff has kept me from researching the citations we talked about.GreekParadise (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fcried, I can't work under these conditions. I'm trying to find an appropriate compromise with you while Threeafterthree is willy-nilly reverting without ANY discussion on the talk page. Please undo his revert to let him know that it's not just me that is offended by changes without any discussion on the talk page. Otherwise, I fear the next stop is all kinds of ugliness: edit war, 3RR accusations, arbitration, and accusations of bad faith on the talk page, etc.

For the record, I am willing to go to formal arbitration on this one. I do think Palin's position on the bridges is relevant. Indeed it's more relevant than 90% of the stuff in this section. It's also been the consensus position by dozens of wiki-editors for more than two months now. But Threeafterthree doesn't have the common decency to try to change the consensus, to explain why he thinks Palin's position on the bridges is irrelevant in a section on the bridges in the Palin biography. He won't even go to the talk page. He just changes.

And I can't work with you on our amimcable minor discussion ($442 million and the like) while this kind of major wiki-violence is going on. What really galls me is I went to Threeafterthree's talk page and I nicely asked him to explain himself. He ignored me. I asked again. He ignored me. I wondered if he was away from the computer. I gave him a 30 minutes time limit. He still didn't respond. Then I said I was going to change it back. He still didn't respond. I wait. Then I change it back and he immediately reverts. He was there all along! He just ignored me and, refusing all discussion, changed it back.

I don't want to waste my entire day Saturday reporting Threeafterthree to administrators and the like. I really think that your reverting would show him it's not just me or the edit that's the problem. But obviously, I can't work on our discussion while this kind of major bad faith is going on. So consider our conversation closed until you or someone else reverts Threeaftethree's bad faith change. Otherwise, I have my priorities, and my priority all day will be to get Threeafterthree to state his reasons on the talk page or revert his changes.GreekParadise (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The change Tom made was not about the whales. The change Tom made was removing a six word sentence on Sarah Palin's continued support for the Knik Arm Bridge and a quotation showing her former support for the Gravina Island bridge. Those are major changes. Indeed, they're the heart of the article, and I'm preparing a new section of the talk page now to deal with them. They are important enough to me to arbitrate over.GreekParadise (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, as I originally said, that I was willing to forego the whale stuff, along with a long list of pluses and minues for the Knik Arm bridge, as long as the whole long explanation of pluses and minuses was excluded.

But I am NOT willing to forego mention of Palin's support for the two bridges. That's something I'll fight for and take it to request for comment and even arbitration if necessary. And it galls me that Threeafterthree would make these huge, contentious POV changes without even seeking to justify them on the talk page. (I also gave him substantial opportunity to discuss them with me amicably on his talk page, and he ignored me.) I fear this will end before administrators and ruin my Saturday afternoon, but I just don't know how to get through to Threeafterthree that you don't willy-nilly revert repeatedly on major changes without any discussion.  :-(GreekParadise (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since we agree, could I ask you a favor? I've posted a new section on the talk page on the issue. Could you please comment there and revert TAT's most recent change? I would be forever grateful and if this issue is resolved, I can then go back to the other stuff we were discussing.  :-) GreekParadise (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did some historical checking. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_27#WP:UNDUE Hobartimus tried to remove the spinmeister quote showing Palin's support for the bridge (that had already been there for more than a month as of then). Loodog, Aprock, JamesMLane, Evbwiki, and Buster7 weighed in and it was left unchanged. I wasn't in that discussion. I was at an earlier discussion where Collect or Hobartimus argued against it and the overwhelming consensus was to leave it in. That discussion is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_26#Should_Palin.27s_2006_support_of_the_Bridges_to_Nowhere_be_Excised_Completely_from_the_Article_Bridge_Section.3F Here Collect removed it (after being undisturbed for two weeks). And Duuude007, jossi, JamesMLane, Homunq joined in with me to support its reinclusion.

Thus far, I count Collect, Hobartimus, and Threeafterthree that want it out and eleven of us that want it in. But I recall an earlier discussion with even more editors agreeing to the consensus to include it. Could you please revert to the earlier consensus which you support? User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Another editor made the change. Now I simply want to re-include the eight-word sentence showing her continued support for the Knik Arm bridge.GreekParadise (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make attacks on me to my face. Your deliberate misleading claims do you no honor. Collect (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you assume it was me who put it in? Take a closer look. By the way, what consensus? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For alerting me to my error. Collect (talk) 13:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not out to get you. Arbitration is necessary due to your inability/unwillingness to grasp simple logical concepts and even what I am saying in a sentence. You are not the worst of the Rat Pack at this; although I doubt that is going to make what I say any easier, I hope it will. I wouldn't be much good at explaining arbitration; this will be my first. And it doesn't have to be with you. You know what, I am going to give it one more try. I will explain on the discussion why material in quotes has to be actually in the cited source. Anarchangel (talk) 06:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To reply is not per se to "start an argument". It was a reply that simply expressed sympathy for another editor's angst and drew his/her attention to the unsuitability of an article's talk page as a forum for a rant against WP policy.

Pretty sure it wasn't me who suggested the idea of you being "King Wikipedia for a day." But I stand, or rather sit, to be corrected. Now please stop using the SP article's talk page to publicize your ideas about how WP should be run. Take them to the admins and/or user talk pages. Again, please see WP:WWPIN#Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Thanks. — Writegeist (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may be useful to you: Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Proposing policies and guidelines — Writegeist (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to thank you again for your kind words. They actually did help me to feel better. I really have tried to keep my political views and my OR away from the SP article. There has been a lot of talk in there about people getting paid to be in there, and while highly doubt that, I do begin to question peoples motives in there sometimes. I'm beginning to think those who push for these silly things to be included in the article are the real Palin supporters, trying to cover up any credible critisism with all this incredible nonsense. It becomes quite apparent that there are many "experts" on Alaska in here that have never been to Alaska. Hell, until a few months ago I'd bet most peolple still thought we live in igloos and have never seen a TV here.

I'm a bit disheartened that the Palin bashing has not slowed down since the election, but in fact has increased. I was getting a little optimistic there, enjoying the quiet those few day leading up to the election. I was even more disheartened with the way the McCain camp handled the campaign. It was a huge difference from the way Palin campaigned for governor, refusing to take a single shot at her opponents and her own party. Despite their relentless bashing of her, she ignored them, remained open to the people and kept her campaign focused on the issues, and I think McCain would've benefitted greatly from such a style. Anyway, thats my own POV.

I really can't tell if your a Palin supporter or a non-supporter who just wants a precise article, and that's what I admire most about you. Thanks, and I hope you keep up the good work in there while I'm away. If you have any questions regarding Alaska that you think I may be able to help with, please feel free to ask.Zaereth (talk) 02:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two years in Adak! Wow, who'd you piss off to get sent there? :-) Actually, I've never been out there, myself, but my father helped build the naval base. He said he was there when they planted the "forest". (A couple of spindly little trees, which may or may not still be there.) I've heard the stories, though. Howling wind, sideways rain, and maybe 6 hours of sunshine a year.

I'm not at at all political myself either. Really, I'm just a heavy equipment mechanic with some interesting hobbies. I've discovered long ago that a lot of information in very reliable sources is often somewhat questionable. I discovered this when I took up lasers as a hobby. I read somewhere that all you need to make a laser is a couple of mirrors and a flash. Sounds easy enough. I'm a bit of an experimentor, so I set out to see if that was true. Many years and a whole bunch of research later, what I discovered is that most people who write books about lasers have never tried to build one. What you usually end up with is sort of "end of the grape vine" information.

I recently discovered Wikipedia and thought it to be a wonderful source of info if you want to learn about gravitational theory, or find out about the toxicity of Dihydrogen Monoxide. But then I started comparing my original research to some articles of which I have knowlege, and found the same to be true. (I think it was an arguement on whether or not glass is a liquid that first got me involved. {People actually believe that! Someone even tried to teach it to me once in school.) The Sarah Palin article was a real eye opener for me. Its amazing how many Obama supporters came around to make sure every good statement had a bad statement to cancel it out. Maybe its just me, but I've never felt a need to go comment on his article. Frankly, I have no real expetize to offer to the subject. While I have always supported Palin, ever since she fought against all odds and horrible treatment from all of the local media to oust our former governor, who in my opinion was as arrogant and corrupt as they come. I've never claimed a party. (I think the last president I voted for was Ross Perot. Hey, I liked his ideas, I just think he paid the ultimate price for being bad on camera.) To be honest, in my humble opinion, either McCain or Obama would've been okay by me, as long as its not Hilary, (I don't really know why, but she gives me the same bad vibe I got from Frank Murkowski).

As for your point about some of these "negative" claims, I fully agree, they actually make me like her better. She admitted to trying pot. So what? Honestly, I'd almost have to question the integrity of any politician who would say they haven't, (or claims to have, but never inhaled). She has kids, and ran a marathon ... uh ... umm, (is that all they got?). Some of the stupidity of the bizzare claims I seen here just boils my biscuits. But one thing I have to admit, for the latest "scoop" on Palin, these talk pages can't be beat.

Anyway, this has been a huge learning experience for me, and I have a far better understanding of WP. I've been using this new knowledge to help a few other, less arguementative, articles recently.Zaereth (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...the term morons refers accurately to those few journalists (term used loosely) who attempted to incite religious intolerance among us during the campaign." Before Palin grimaced, winked and vacuously babbled her way into the national consciousness, I'd never encountered a journalist who turned out to be a moron. One or two bastards of course. But morons? No.

"I hope you're not suggesting that idiots like Obermann [you mean the distinguished Keith Olbermann?] ran this video in prime time slots to celebrate Palin's or Muthee's freedoms of religious expression?" I think you know that's not what I suggested. But are you suggesting that that would be the only valid reason to run it? It's legitimate to publish a public figure's public choices concerning the public conduct of his or her religious activities. And when the public figure is running for one of the most influential jobs in the world, publication is in the public interest, whether you like it or not. And Olbermann's an "idiot"? Come on. Surely you can acknowledge the smarts of a man who, asked by the head of MSNBC if it's "really necessary" to tell an authentic idiot, namely George Bush, to "shut the hell up", replied that yes it is, because you're not allowed to say "fuck" on TV.

"As far as my own motivations, I have far better things to do than to delve into trivia (and far more productive activities than engaging in meaningless battles here with you..." And yet you do. Which is how I know that, for all your protestations, deep down you really, truly, love me. And do I respect that? Goshdarnit, you betcha! :~) Writegeist (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely maddening. Numerous people committed countless hours of earnest discussion on this subject only to have the same guy come in and remove it over and over again as if he is President of Wikipedia. In fact THIS is exactly the sort of reason I never felt safe leaving this article alone... it seems a few people have just been waiting around until "no one was looking" in order to enforce their own standards? Hell, I found myself deleting talk page comments a couple days ago because it was shameless off-topic spam. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh just one additional suggestion... you might post some blurb on your user page so your name no longer appears in red. I didn't care about my own user page for quite awhile either, but I think eventually it will start to feel sort of empty. ;) Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will try to do that this weekend. My creative skills suck, but we shall see! :) Fcreid (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this. Userboxes, those little graphical things that appear on people's pages, are probably the easiest and coolest way to customize your page. A comprehensive list of them can be found here. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some people are asking for you by name on the Palin article. Now, they probably want your approval for things that I'll disapprove of, but that's life...  ;) I'm spending too much time on this stuff again and need to cut it off for a while to focus on real life. Be gentle in my absence ! Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I don't even want to recall the bitter discussions we had leading up to that compromise. I know I repeatedly lost my temper and said some things I now regret, and I bet I'm not the only one. Hopefully we can put this issue to bed and cease the madness. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder if you wouldn't mind reverting Tom's latest deletion of the rape kit paragraph. An admin has warned me that I will be blocked for edit warring if I revert it again, and warned Tom to stop deleting it. However for my part I think that if we're going to stop edit warring, it should at least be reverted back to what it was originally. Anyway, up to you. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For tirelessly seeking consensus amidst a long and bitter debate; for demanding concessions from both sides in an effort to produce compromise. For dealing with me! Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure another Barnstar might suit the situation better, but this is the only one I've ever received, so it's the only one I feel comfortable giving out. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to hide in a closet and weep silently for about a week! Best wishes. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit man, it's beyond inconsiderate of you to blue your name by posting to your user page. Now it's going to take me twice as long to find your stuff on SP talk! Is this a personal attack?* You betcha! *(Yes, PA) And BTW, thank you for the generous contrib. to Connolley's message on my talk. Truly appreciated. — Writegeist (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh! Didn't even realize being blue would be an artifact of having something on my user page! Fcreid (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that we really disagree about what's in the article. I just piped in to respond to your assertion about the relevance of religious beliefs to U.S. politicans. That's a topic that'd be discussed better over a pint at a pub than over the internet at a Wikipedia talk page. Cheers, ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Fallow deer Maryland winter.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Fallow deer Maryland summer.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the correct procedure for reporting him for edit warring? I ask only because you're a long time editor and may know how to do this properly.LedRush (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. your persistent, repeated description of another editor at SP Talk as a jerk:

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. At least, I assume so. And I have no wish to see that. As you know I have already tried elsewhere to persuade you to cool it. But unsuccessfully. Hence this template warning with its stupid little traffic sign. — Writegeist (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I chose my words carefully there, WG... it states Anarchangel was acting like a jerk, and I went on to list the specific behavior for that. He/she may in fact be the greatest person in the world, but that is not apparent in his/her recent edit history either on talk or in the main article body itself. Again, I know you're sincere in your goals, but my description of events is equally sincere. Fcreid (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strewth you're a slippery customer. Since you do indeed choose your words carefully, it's a blatant, er, economy with the actualité to claim now that you (only) said A was "acting like a jerk" (emphasis added), which itself, incidentally, would be a personal attack. No. Fact is, you took the insult a step further: what you actually said was not at all that A was acting like anything but that A was "being a kind of jerk" (emphasis added). You can weasel around with that snivelly "kind of" as much as you like, and no doubt you will; the fact remains you called another editor a jerk. Personal attack, red in tooth and claw. And now you're being, ahem, a kind of big girl's blouse about it. Come on, be a man. In the heat of the moment you landed a low blow. You you got called on it. The protestations of innocence just add injury to the insult. Admit the attack, remove it, and move on. (Or be consigned forever to the despised ranks of the QWs. Of whom there are already far too many at WP!) Me, I'm moving on. Ta-ta then. — Writegeist (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reconsidered my use of the word, given its harsh connotations and your obvious offense. I will not recant my stated feelings regarding this editor's recent editing spates, nor will I renege on my statement that this editor's intention is to put so much material into the article that it forces the reader to conclude Palin was complicit in the practice (despite that the evidence indicates otherwise). We are not putting Palin on WP trial here, so we stick to the facts. And, man, can someone really read Huffington Post and not realize that's a left-wing blog?! Is that for real? Fcreid (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and kudos to you. Huffington Post? Left-wing? Really? :~) — Writegeist (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you, my friend. A very happy holiday season to you and yours. Fcreid (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You too. Happy Crimble. — Writegeist (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know if you have any interest or strong views on unions or union busting, but I know you've put a lot of time into making and improving Wikipedia articles. While I know we don't always agree, I thought your input on this article could be helpful as some of the conversations and disagreements there are longstanding and, because there are only 3-4 regular editors, getting new opinions is hard. I've nominated the article for peer review, but if you have time or interest, I'd be grateful if you could take a look and see if you can help make the article better.LedRush (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess, I am jealous of anyone considering retirement. I have been working for only about 8 years (interrupted by 3 years of more school) and I already want to retire. I hope that the trip to Cali goes well :)LedRush (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Sarah Palin. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you've seen this movie yet, called Media Malpractice, how Obama got elected and Palin was targeted (The death of journalism), but if not, I would highly recommend it. After everything I've seen going on here I consider myself more informed than most voters, but I was still shocked at just how blatant the media was in their attempts to promote Obama to god-like status and to destroy Palin altogether. Most striking was NBC anchor Brian Williams putting out a "call to arms" after Palin's candidacy was announced, or the CNN reporter admitting that she'd been traveling with Obama as part of the campaign team. This is probably one of the most important videos of our time, showing a scary trend for the media to alter the truth as they see fit. The great thing is that it's not a lot of hype and commentary ... just straight evidence of what actually happened, (real reporting!), the producer just stands back and lets the media put their own foots in their mouths. It seems to me that if anyone here would appreciate it, it would be you. Zaereth (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a reply for you on my talk page. Thanks Zaereth (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I mentioned/diffed your wise comment on Sarah Palin Talk elsewhere. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: (to your Thank you on my talk)

Beautifully said—and the spirit of which is reflected in your participation. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might benefit from your insights. Collect (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or has there been a lot of grandstanding on talk recently? Zaereth (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may or may not be interested in this very short article by the Society for Professional Journalists. Most of my arguments are based upon these principles, and I'm involved in a discussion at Talk:NPOV about improving Wikipedia standards. You're welcome to comment there if you want, I'd love to hear your take, but if not these ethics codes may be of use to you. Zaereth (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if there was any misunderstanding, and thanks for your comments.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greets FC, I had one comment I wanted to make but I don't really want to wade into a content dispute at Palin, so I thought I'd just mention it privately to you, instead. I've periodically watched the Palin article over the past months, although I typically felt that WP:NOTNEWS was the succinct, appropriate response to much of what has been suggested for inclusion, I do not think that the recent comments on Obamacare fall under the same umbrella. Admittedly, it's quite a high-profile, front-and-center action to confront the Pres so directly and in such dramatic language... nothing at all like, say, the latest developments with Levi or a blow-by-blow tally of every single ethics case filed.

Anyway, I haven't really noticed whether you've supported or opposed mention of this episode – and I do notice that it's already in the article, so no complaint so far – but I thought maybe you could keep this comment of mine in mind as the discussion develops, and raise it on my behalf if it seems appropriate. Thanks & hope you're doing well! Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this covers it. LOL Have a great weekend. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow basic editing procedures. Don't remove the POV tag on that Palin article again until the matter is resolved in talk. Scribner (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fcreid! I hope you're enjoying this lull on SP. It's nice to see the push for the inclusion of the inane to be slowing down. I wish you a merry Christmas and hope you have a wonderful time this holiday season. Zaereth (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zaereth (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the calming words the other day, Fcreid. Due to compounding factors in real life, I was a bit irritable the past few days. I decided it was best to drop out of that discussion before saying something I'd regret. (I wasn't happy with my statement anyhow. Should've worded it better. Sometimes, though, even the people I agree with just rub me the wrong way.) Thanks again, and hope you've finally managed to dig yourself out of that snow. Zaereth (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds rough, especially if you're in an area that's not equipped for it. We haven't had nearly enough snow here, at least not for some good snowmachining, so feel free to send us all you've got! :-) It hasn't stopped us though ... we just have to be very careful. A tree root catching your ski at 80 MPH can ruin your day pretty quick. Zaereth (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see from the main page that you're still getting dumped on down there. The pictures look like they could've been taken here. Hope you manage to get through it. Spring will be coming soon! Zaereth (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

for explaining some of your background on the health issues, I replied on my talk page. ~S January 13, 2010.

Palin's initial death panel statement made a very emotional reference to a Michelle Bachmann speech about a Betsy McCaughey article. This is why TIME, The New York Times and other reliable news sources said that Palin was not the first to talk about points raised previously by McCaughey. Palin even had a link to a You Tube video of the Bachmann speech at the bottom of her facebook page. The speech Palin referred to said, in part, as follows:

This morning I read a column written by Betsy McCaughey, and I would like to quote from it extensively now. This is from a column dated July 24, 2009. Ms. McCaughey wrote the following. She said, The health bills coming out of Congress would put the decisions about your care in the hands of Presidential appointees. Government will decide, not the people, not their doctors, what our plan will cover, how much leeway our doctor will have, and what senior citizens will finally get under Medicare.

Maybe references from reliable sources should be given more credit.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, I'm hoping not to be obtuse on this point, but I still don't get the connection or relevance you see here. I admit I don't know McCaughey from Adam. I presume (from the context) that she's a "villain" to the draft legislation in the current health care debate. I'm not a politics aficionado, but I presume I'd have heard about her if she was prominent nationally. In addition to her lack of notability, I still don't understand (and maybe just disagree with, once I understand) the premise of this connection you're trying to make. There are countless politicians who read and quote Lincoln, FDR and many others far more notable than McCaughey for their own inspiration and into their public oratories, yet we wouldn't attempt to attribute every political position they hold to a person who went before. So, again, if I can better understand the significance of including these other people who provided a similar perspective on the "Death Panel" issue, maybe it will become clearer to me. Fcreid (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left an explanation of Malke's points on the Sarah Palin discussion page.Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before the argument was made that the edit in question should reflect what Palin said.

Now what Palin said repeatedly, at length, in detail and with great emphasis and obvious emotion is said to be "cherry-picking" and a "pointy-point", whatever that means.

Before the argument was made many times (by Malke) that Wikipedia rules should be followed. These rules require references deemed to be reliable by Wikipedia.

Now ABC News' Chief White House political correspondent and The Atlantic are said to be "flimsy", or one Wikipedia editor's interpretation of events. Completely unreferenced edits are now said to be "the truth".

While we all have opinions, Wikipedia rules and reliable references are as close as we can get to any kind of objectivity. What else are editors supposed to agree on, or accept as objective?Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fc, for your kind words. You're right. I did mistake your humor for a bite. I don't watch adult movies so I don't quite get the reference (wink, wink, nod, nod) but I think I understand. Over the past year you have been more than fair and collaborative at SP. Your diplomacy and even-handed ability to moderate and give guidance is well known and appreciated not just at SP but elsewhere. We good faith editors are the touchstones that maintain the "Equal"-ibrium needed to come to a concensus, especially at controversial articles like SP. As you well know not every editor takes this path. Some editors treat SP as if it was private property and go into "attack dog" mode at the hint of any trespass. Thank goodness there is someone like you to holler, "Heal!". Your friend,--Buster7 (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not worth the elevated hypertension levels dealing with the new residents at SP. Of course, I may change my mind Tuesday evening. Take care.--Buster7 (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Frank, just logged in to post a bit and wanted to drop in and say hi. I occasionally keep tabs on the Palin talk page for old times' sake and am usually pleased to observe your thoughtful and conciliatory approach. Make sure to drop me a note if you ever file an RFA !! (And on that note, give a thought to the old saw telling us that those who wish to seek political power are often the least qualified for it.) Cheers, thesuperlongnameguy. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have a Happy Day, Fcreid, :D Malke2010 23:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Irish Catholic seems equal to Dublin Irish Catholic. Especially with 14 kids. Wow. That tops our 5.Malke2010 17:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the reference you mentioned does NOT say that Palin walked back any of her previous comments. If you had "a half dozen references" for saying otherwise, which of the remaining five would prove your point?Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any luck with that one yet?Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"A half dozen references" to choose from. Well?Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		To Fcreid in appreciation of your efforts in working with others to build not only good articles, but in helping to make Wikipedia a collegial community. Fcreid, you are a fine wiki fellow. Well done. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well things were pretty quiet on SP talk for a while, until this recent explosion of activity. I must have missed something that has brought her back into the spotlight. But there is a bit of good news, which I saw last night. At least, it's good news for people up here. It looks like we're finally going to get our "bridge to nowhere." (By that I mean the Knik Arm Bridge, not the actual bridge to nowhere.) It looks like plans have been approved for it. I know that's probably not too newsworthy where you are, but I was so happy that I had to tell someone!

Anyhow, if I don't get to you before then, I hope you have a Merry Christmas this year, and, more importantly, a happy winter solstice. (That may also be a bigger deal here than it is there. Finally, the days start getting longer!) I'm not sure if you got hit by that winter storm which I saw moving across the country last week, But after last winter, I hope it spared you this time. Zaereth (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's good to hear that the snow isn't so bad this year. It's always tough when you get dumped on and just have too much at once. I'll be spending Christmas at my brother's house. We plan to do a lot of snowmachine riding this weekend. It's a lot of fun, plus a great work out. Every muscle in my body will be sore by this time tomorrow. We just have to be careful not to get lost. Anyway, once again, I hope your quiet litle Christmas is a great one, and may the new year be filled with happiness. Zaereth (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...Crimble to you too, Fcr! And long may the merriment continue :~) Writegeist (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fcr, as usual, your balanced input helps the different conversations flow and keeps them on task. B7...Buster Seven Talk 16:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall using admin tools on Sarah Palin-related articles in the past, nor do I intend to in the future. I'm just an editor there like any other.   Will Beback  talk  11:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, what do you think? Should we be bold and just go with Option 1b? No one else is coming forward and the article is out of time with current events. The Bears game is in 3 hours. I'll wait till then. TC. B7. Buster Seven Talk 15:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• a transparent attempt to undermine a point
• weak attempts to disprove the generalized statement (which everyone knows perfectly well is absolutely true) through sleight of hand and irrelevant commentary.

It occurs to me that you may not be aware of Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation. It says that "Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith." The above remarks are assumptions of bad faith. Please read the terms of the probation and be more careful in your remarks.   Will Beback  talk  21:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is making these attempts? Who is conducting "sleight-of-hand"? I assume you are referring to the actions of editors. If you are referring to something else then that wasn't clear in your writing. These kinds of accusation are unhelpful and make talk pages feel like battlegrounds. Please do not ascribe bad faith motives to other editors.   Will Beback  talk  22:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted the editor via talk. Thought you should know. B7...Buster Seven Talk 12:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to drop in to WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard re: Admin:Horologium. While the discussion is primarily about Editor:Horologium, your actions are also being addressed inaccurately and in a contentuous manner. We continue to be accused of being a tag-team because we both reverted the same inappropriate category insertion at SP. This courtesy should have been extended by the accuser but WP etiquette is beyond the scope of some.Buster Seven Talk 13:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see new thread re:Category edits.Buster Seven Talk 20:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		Cents for Sense
		Sometimes two cents is worth alot more than it seems. Consider this pre-payment for visiting Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Welcome new users and sharing your view. Also, please check out the message behind the current banner at the top of all the WikiPages. Your insight and consciousness are valuable as WE (Wikipedia Editors) consider and create our credo(s) for the future. At Wikipedia all we really have are conversations and some are more important than others. OK! I admit it! The Koekjes were a bribe. TRA!Buster Seven Talk 22:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... :~) Writegeist (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. I started to write "Where's FCR when we need him?" in one post but stopped for fear that someone would accuse me of meatpuppetry if/when you actually turned up...! Anyway, good to see you step in there, and as usual I trust your voice of reason (not to mention the dry wit) to keep the discussion collegial and on-topic. I still reserve the right to josh, of course. (And acknowledge yours.) All the best as always. Writegeist (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel like playing the straight man to my frothy lunatic act over at Michele Bachmann??  :^) Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it to these freaks above to RUIN YOUR TALK PAGE >.< ... Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, guys! I've found myself stranded in Hawaii for the past month or so (business, of course), so I apologize for my delay in responding. Great to hear from everyone! Fcreid (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The horror! Safe travels back to more hospitable climes! ;^) Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what gives? I think a right squiggly bracket may need to be placed... somewhere... around the end of Buster's comment?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Factchecker, are you in there? Zaereth (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, now I'm stuck in here too.Zaereth (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've dug a tunnel. Let's hope we don't emerge inside some other text box... Writegeist (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saving us, WG!  :) Fcreid (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, WG! Thats what happens when you put modern inventions in the hands of the senile. A bit like Under the Dome. Sorry for the unintended claustrophobia. Buster Seven Talk 16:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All is well again! :) Fcreid (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phew! And all thanks to Factchecker. Squiggledom creates wriggle-room! Writegeist (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This made me giggle. And hey folks, check out my new sig! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the guy who was bold enough to remove the sensationalistic stuff about McGiness's book from Sarah Palin. I am the type of editor who supports our policy on biographies of living people, the neutral point of view, and reliable sources, even when it comes to articles about political figures I dislike personally. I am not a Sarah Palin fan but believe that her biography should be treated with as much care and concern as Howard Dean's. I'm also not a big Dean fan personally, but I hope you get my point. Anyway, I tend to avoid the highly contentious areas. But maybe, this article has migrated into the realm of only moderately contentious. Perhaps. I hope to be helpful now that it's on my watch list. As for pioneer online credentials, not so much for me. I did buy a Radio Shack TRS-80 whem Jimmy Carter was president, and stored mailing lists on cassette tapes. Perhaps that counts for something. Best regards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thanksgiving, Fcreid!
As we all sit down at the dinner table and say our thanks, I would like to give thanks to you for your wonderful contributions and wish you a very happy Thanksgiving. May your turkey, ham or beast of choice satiate you until next year! TRA! Buster Seven Talk 17:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Hey Fcreid, long time no see. All's been quiet on the western front, I see. We've been getting enough snow here this winter, but it's been too cold to go out and do anything in it. It was -23 F at my house the other morning. I plan to stay in by the warm fire. I wish you and your family a great Thanksgiving day! Zaereth (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No snow here yet, but it sounds like fun! All quiet here. My younger child and his family (who live in Vancouver) won't make it home for the holidays this year, but his older sister who lives closer will be visiting. Looking forward to a quiet Thanksgiving Day. My best to you and yours up there in the Great White North! :) Fcreid (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fcreid, I just wanted to wish you a Merry Christmas. I hope your holiday season is going great. We got a lot of snow here, especially in the last couple of days, and I've been out tearing up the trails on my machine. According to Einstein, time slows down the faster you go, and so I'm trying to stay young. (I'm beginning to doubt Einstein, because it doesn't seem to be working.) These new, liquid-cooled, three cylinder snowmachines are amazingly powerful. The amount of acceleration and deceleration they have just blows me away. I can stop along-side the highway, waiting for a car to pass doing about 75 MPH, then hit the throttle and pass him up within 5-8 seconds. It's hard to keep from getting thrown off, or from letting the front end pop up and flip the machine over. Every muscle in my body is sore right now, including muscles I forgot I had. Probably the worst is my throttle-thumb and my hang-on-for-dear-life-fingers, which is making typing rather difficult right now. (I look like I'm having a seizure over here.) Anyhow, I hope things are going great over in the east side of the land. I just wanted to wish you, your wife and kids a Merry Christmas, and I hope the New Year brings you happiness and joy. Zaereth (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays..--Buster Seven Talk 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Buster! A belated Merry Christmas to you, too! Hope you had a great one. Was a quiet holiday here this year. Fcreid (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An important project WP:WEaPOn (about Paid Operatives) I have initiated is up for speedy. Can you assist? I want to play by the rules but they seem stacked against an honest effort to record a history of an event as it happens. Urgent. TY. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need. An admin has already removed the speedy tag and restored the page. [5], [6] . Greetings, FCR! Writegeist (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, guys. Sorry for my absence. Had a busy week on the west coast. Fcreid (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...no see/hear. Miss you, old friend. Here's hoping all is well. Best wishes, Writegeist (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All is well, my friend. The kids are great. Things remain quiet in the nest. I'm dealing with the predictable creaking, cracking and weathering in the vessel that has carried me this far, so I've got procrastinated repairs I must make to bring me comfortably to the other side. Looking forward to the warm summer. Fcreid (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fcreid, long time no see. I just thought I'd write a little note in the summer, for a change. I usually contact all my friends here on Christmas, so everyone can hear how much snow we're getting. (11 feet last winter; a record breaker!) This year I thought I'd send some summertime cheers. Of course, having been here before, I don't have to describe summer to you. I'll just say that we're approaching 19 hours of daylight, (not counting twilight), and I couldn't be happier ... or busier.

For me, it's all work lately. When I'm not at my job, I'm either working on remodeling the house or training the dogs. Of my two German Shepherds, Jessie, the youngest, just turned two, so I've moved her from the teaching phase to the training phase. Now we're going full-steam-ahead with their training; everything from military, police dog, guard dog, search and rescue, search and retrieval, and guide dog training. They're doing great at it, but, I have to admit, this is pretty much accounting for most of my social life at the moment.

I hope you all are doing well down there. I don't know about you, but I'm thankful for the quiet of the SP article. It's given me more time to work on articles more suited to me. (Political articles ... ugggh!) Anyhow, take care, and have a happy summer! Zaereth (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Zaereth. Just noticed this. (I guess it's been awhile since I checked my user page!) Things are good and not much is new. Still waiting for one of my cherubs to provide us with a grandchild we can spoil! Fcreid (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fcreid! Long time no see. No worries here, I guessed as much. Yeah, from what my mom told me, being a grandparent is the best. You get to have all the fun, and you get to send 'em home when they get cranky. Happy Thanksgiving! It's a little early, but I won't be anywhere close to a computer next week. (Sorry I don't have a fancy template, but I still have no clue where people find these things.) I broke up with my girlfriend, so it's just me and the dogs for dinner this year, maybe a neice or nephew ... and perhaps one of my brothers may come back to town from the Slope. Anyhow, I hope you, Dru and all the kids have a wonderful holiday! Zaereth (talk) 02:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thanksgiving, Fcreid!
As we all sit down at the dinner table and say our thanks, I would like to give thanks to you for your wonderful contributions and wish you a very happy Thanksgiving. May your turkey, ham or beast of choice satiate you until next year! TRA! ```Buster Seven Talk 14:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Buster. As always, I'm also very thankful for my good friends here on WP! Happy holidays to all! Fcreid (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fcreid,

I just wanted to wish you and yours a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I have to say, you are without a doubt one of the most straight-forward, level-headed people I have met here. You really have a knack for cutting through all of the lawyering and diffusing a situation by going directly for the heart of the matter. One thing that I enjoyed about the Palin article was showing up everyday just to see what you had written. Thank you, and I hope the coming year brings you happiness and joy. Zaereth (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honored and flattered, Zaereth, and deeply admire your analytic expertise as well. Merry Christmas, and have a safe and wonderful holiday season. No white Christmas here, but we'll make do! Fcreid (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fcreid!

I just wanted to stop by and wish you and your family a Happy Thanksgiving! I saw your message on Talk:SP, but felt it best not to respond there. Anyhow, I hope you have a great holiday. Don't eat too much. Zaereth (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Zaereth, and to you and yours as well. Very quiet this year. The chicks have flown the nest, so it was just Dru and I. Fcreid (talk) 11:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How's it going? I hope you had a good Thanksgiving, even if it was a quiet one. I hear it's been colder down there than it is up here. It was just me, my girlfriend and the dogs this year, as most of my family is either up on the Slope or in North Dakota right now. We've been really busy here, getting ready to have a litter of pups, so there's not much time for myself right now. Anyhow, I wish you all a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year! Zaereth (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fcreid. Long time no see. I hope you're doing good, and I wanted to wish you a great holiday weekend! Zaereth (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fcreid. Thanks for stopping by earlier this year. It was very nice to hear from you again. Sounds like you had some adventures. I hope you and your wife are doing well. I just wanted to wish you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Zaereth (talk) 20:19, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]