User talk:Anythingyouwant

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.

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]

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]

Archives

My curiosity is getting the better of me

Impressed!

Abortion picture

From NPOV noticeboard

3RR