User talk:Anythingyouwant: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:12, 20 December 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Mike Huckabee Merge Proposal

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

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

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

RfA

sknahT! :) --El on ka 20:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romney and Tvos

Please keep your commentary focused on the contributions rather than the contributers. See WP:CIVIL. If you think that Tvos has a conflict of interest, please talk to her or work it out on the WP:COI/N. Consider this a warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool Hand Luke (talk • contribs) 06:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've given a similar warning to Tvoz as well, for which I thank you. Tvoz has already used the Mitt Romney discussion thread to insinuate that I am engaging in a "campaign" for Romney, and to accuse me of attempting to "bury" material about Romney.

I did subsequently mention parenthetically to Qworty that Tvoz is not a Republican (as reported on page one of the Washington Post). I thought Qworty might find that interesting, seeing as how Qworty had already mentioned that he himself is not a Republican. I didn't mean to imply that Tvoz has any conflict of interest due to the fact that she is a Democrat.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ban?

I have requested clarification concerning your ban here. Please feel free to comment if you have information to share. --Yamla (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I was wondering if you wouldn't mind moving the following section (Talk:Roe_v._Wade#.22Editorializing.22) to my talk page. It is apparently a personal message to me left on an article talk page. Thanks for understanding.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew c, as I mentioned in that section, I would be glad to continue the discussion at my talk page, or at your talk page. You asserted at the Roe v. Wade article that I was "editorializing" and "jabbing" you, and so I would like to be able to deny those assertions at the place they were made. Is there a problem with that?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you making trouble again? Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 80: / Line 80: @@
 :Andrew c, as I mentioned in that section, I would be glad to continue the discussion at my talk page, or at your talk page.  You asserted at the Roe v. Wade article that I was "editorializing" and "jabbing" you, and so I would like to be able to deny those assertions at the place they were made.  Is there a problem with that?[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge#top|talk]]) 18:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 ::Are you making trouble again? [[User:Arbeit Sockenpuppe|Arbeit Sockenpuppe]] ([[User talk:Arbeit Sockenpuppe|talk]]) 20:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
+:::Someone is.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge#top|talk]]) 20:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)