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.

Archive 7: 30 November 2007 to 31 December 2007.

Archive 8: 31 December 2007 to 19 February 2008.

WP:AE

Based on your behavior at Talk:Abortion, which I believe was disruptive, I have filed a report at WP:AE asking that you be banned from abortion and its talk page under the terms of the ArbCom sanctions against you. MastCell ^Talk 19:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've filed a request at WP:RfArb for the expansion of remedies from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge. Briefly, I'm asking that the sanctions allowing you to be banned from specific articles for disruptive behavior be extended to apply to all pages (talkspace, projectspace, etc) where your conduct is disruptive, rather than applying solely to articlespace. I'm notifying you as an involved party in the original ArbCom case. MastCell ^Talk 21:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

After looking at some of your contributions, Ferrylodge, it appears to me MastCell is out to ban you, not for disruptiveness, but because you do not share his POV. Your edits are consistently well-sourced, constructive, and encyclopedic; your demeanor consistently excellent; your points consistently cogent. Please do not be discouraged. NCdave (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Abortion and Mental Health

I see MastCell is out to silence you too. For my part, thanks for participating in the discussion regarding Koop at abortion. It was very helpful information. That and other reliable information that continues to get purged at abortion and mental health truly distort these articles. In the latter article, editors have openly purged over 22 peer reviewed references to push their POV. I have added additional notes on the discussion page regarding materials that have consistently been purged from abortion and mental health. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated.--Strider12 (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message. I'll try to get back to you soon, but have much other stuff to do right at the moment. I haven't reviewed your edits, so I can't say yet who appears to be right or wrong, and I also have never edited at abortion and mental health. However, I hope to have enough free time soon to give you a more helpful response than this one.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note of encouragement. You may be interested that MastCell has developed a list of complaints against me and has opened a request for comments against me.--Strider12 (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was already aware of the request for comments, but have not yet become involved in it. Mastcell seems to be correct that you have edited in a very narrow range of topics, and have advocated that abortion has significant negative effects on mental health. And, IMHO, there's nothing necessarily wrong with that, as long as you are trying to bring neutrality to an article that reflects the opposite POV from your own.

I haven't examined most of Mastcell's assertions and diffs at your RfC, but I did notice that you made a policy suggestion: that reputable and reliable sources should not be deleted, and they should simply be allowed to accumulate as much as possible on both sides. I don't know if you still have that opinion, but it doesn't seem consistent with an encyclopedia article which by its nature should be brief; if every source on both sides were listed in a Wikipedia article, then the article would become prohibitively lengthy.

At the same time, I agree with you, from personal experiance, that IAA is a very difficult person to work with, and if we could write an article titled "POV pusher" then we would know whose photograph to seek as an illustration.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe in condensing articles. But I also believe evidence should be allowed to accumulate until such point that editors AGREE that the all the pertinent material is before them and should now be condensed. Condensing an article should FOLLOW the putting forth of material, not proceed it, especially if some editors doubt the relevence of the added material. Otherwise we have editors who say I have THE SUMMARY source right here and anything that disagrees with it doesn't deserve a place. At least that it what I have witnessed. In my case, sure I could add briefer bits but they would still get cut! The reason to add longer bits, and many sources is to demonstrate that the material is truly reliable. I'm quite open to condensing later. Also, as you know, Encylopedia Britanica articles can be several thousand words. There is no "law" that says that these articles need to be brief and given the electronic nature of them virtually no financial reason to keep them brief.--Strider12 (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't the best place to allow accumulation of evidence be at the talk page, rather than directly filling up the article with it? Then when everyone has listed all their sources at the talk page, there can be a decision about which ones to use in order to keep the article to a reasonable length. If the article is directly filled up with sources on one side of the issue at one rate, and is directly filled up with sources on the other side of the issue at another different rate, then the article's balance could get seriously out of whack, don't you think? By the way, I'm certainly not ruling out the possibility that some of the editors at that article have been trying to push a POV (I've witnessed plenty of that in various articles), but it's always best if people who object to that POV-pushing do so in the most effective manner, and so that's why I'm asking you questions.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Cite author order

If you're going to do the drudge work to put the "cite news" authors in last, first order, you should probably use the first= and last= template options, rather than author=last,first. At least that's what the comments at Template talk:Cite news say. Me, I've been guilty of just doing author=first last for editing convenience in the first place. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I had (and still have) a lot of "author=first last" uses in the HRC article when it was FAC, and I don't remember anyone complaining. To me, the different "cite" templates present information in sufficiently different ways that book cites, web cites, and news cites already look like they clash with each other, regardless of whether name order is consistent or not. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Three_generations_of_McCains.jpg

It looks like Image:Three_generations_of_McCains.jpg is on Commons, so since it isn't free it is being deleted. Frankly, I'm a little surprised it hasn't been speedied. On the other hand, there isn't anything stopping you from downloading a copy from Commons, and then uploading it on en-Wikipedia (with a different file name) with a fair use claim. I can't guarantee that it'll survive any possible fair use review since the photo itself is used more for decoration than anything in the section that its in.... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and in case you're wondering.. I saw your comment on Wasted Time R's talk page. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If Wasted Time wants to upload the pic on Wikipedia, then I have no objection, but I'm not going to do it. I didn't upload the pic to Wikimedia Commons, didn't install it into the McCain article, and don't really care much either way what happens to it. I just wanted to make Wasted Time R aware of the imminent deletion.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like it should be deleted ... it's probably from McCain's private collection or something, I don't see any evidence of it being government-owned or public domain. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Working on cut down main article?

Are you working on the sandbox cut-down main article? Your talk page edit there said you wanted to. Otherwise I'll proceed with the next sections in it. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll go there now. I was just trying to spruce up your new article on early life and military career (new pic, decorations at top and bottom just like the nav box, formatting).Ferrylodge (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The decorations at the top look kind of over-the-top. There's already someone in the main page comments complaining about including the decoration graphics in the end section. Ostentatious display of decorations is frowned upon in some military cultures as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll remove it.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge amendment

I have filed a new request at WP:RfARB for the Ferrylodge case sanctions to be amended or clarified to apply to Ferrylodge's editing in all namespaces, rather than solely in articlespace. This is a courtesy notification as you've been an involved party to the original decision; your statement or other input is welcome at the WP:RfARB page. MastCell ^Talk 18:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)