User talk:Anythingyouwant

Archives

Archive 1: Beginning of Time to 14 March 2007 (plus one comment by Ferrylodge on 27 September 2007).

Archive 2: 14 March 2007 to 14 May 2007.

Archive 3: 14 May 2007 to 15 June 2007.

Archive 4: 15 June 2007 to 11 September 2007.

Archive 5: 11 September 2007 to 13 November 2007.

Archive 6: 13 November 2007 to 30 November 2007.

Hey Ferrylodge!

Great to have you back on here! I was really quite upset at your ban. Hopefully you will stick around.

Anyway, I'm just stopping by to say hello. I hope you are doing well. --Eastlaw (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to echo Eastlaw. Aloha and Welcome back! --Ali'i 16:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Things didn't turn out quite as bad as they seemed to be heading, at the ArbCom. So, I'll hang around awhile longer, I guess.  :)Ferrylodge 18:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversies of Rudy Giuliani article

The Wasted Time R editor did not like the controversies article. A majority of other editors in the discussion agreed. Here is the article, prior to the deletion {via "redirect"} by another opponent of the article: [1].

So, now, people must hunt for controversial material in various articles, Rudy Giuliani, Giuliani Partners, Mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani, Political positions of Rudy Giuliani, Judith Nathan,

• Rudy Giuliani promotions of Bernard Kerik
• September 11, 2001 attacks
• his role in minimizing the dangers of the unhealthy air at Ground Zero, see Health effects arising from the September 11, 2001 attacks. Regards, Dogru144 (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not (yet) been involved in the Giuliani article. I merely pointed out that there is a third alternative, in addition to keeping or deleting a controversies article. That third alternative is to keep a list, as occurred for Clinton.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee Merge Proposal

Please comment on merging Mike Huckabee controversies into Mike Huckabee here [[2]] Jmegill (talk) 10:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems like it's already been merged, so there's nothing to comment about.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"If available"

Yeah, I noticed that too late. A while ago someone stripped all non-linked and deadlink news sources from an articles I watch, saying that they weren't verifiable. I jumped to an unsupported conclusion, I'm sorry. Cool Hand Luke 00:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. :)Ferrylodge (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing personal

Ferrylodge, just so you know, I have nothing personal against you or your editing. I just was unsure how to interpret Qworty's comment and figured someone who helped make the decision would know best. I know your position on this article is reasonable enough that it is open to debate by the community, otherwise I wouldn't have even entered into a dialogue. This time around though, we just happen to disagree. Cheers. Mbisanz (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope you see that Qworty was wrong about the ArbCom thing (among others).Ferrylodge (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm asking about that. It seems absurd on it's face, but they say "broadly construed," so it couldn't hurt to be safe. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification. Seems to be intimidation though. Cool Hand Luke 02:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have commented here.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see my question answered. WIthout knowing the context of the case, I never know if someone's summaries are correct. This time yours was, I apologize if this felt like post-arbcom hounding. Mbisanz (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Accepted. Thanks again.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty satisfied by this answer. Although not from an arbitrator, I think that's the reaction most would have. It's certainly the reaction I had. I wish the remedy against you was clearer though. I fear remedies like this might someday lead to wheel warring (or at least the threat of it). Cool Hand Luke 23:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Good work on Romney

That's nothing. Actually writing a new section from whole cloth was the hard part. Your work helped finally get the article unlocked after almost 10 days (a very long time for a leading nominee, I think). I was pre-occupied with finals until today, but you've done great work on the article. Cool Hand Luke 08:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA

sknahT!  :) --Elonka 20:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Romney and TVOZ

Please keep your commentary focused on the contributions rather than the contributers. See WP:CIVIL. If you think that TVOZ has a conflict of interest, please talk to him or work it out on the WP:COI/N. Consider this a warning.