User talk:Ferrylodge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Your redlinks do not take me anywhere.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much for correcting the links, OrangeMarlin.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of preview button

While we encourage people to use the preview button, this might be taking it too far. Feel free to split up your edits into several stages, as it actually makes it easier to track changes for everyone else. The Evil Spartan (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Evil Spartan. This is unusual for me. Normally I edit in small increments. However, in this case, there was massive sandbox editing, as discussed here in the sandbox of Wasted Time R. This plan had been discussed at the John McCain talk page, here. I'll mention to Wasted Time R that we should try to further shorten the article by editing in smaller increments.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Does that mean the changes I made were undone? I'm not a big fan of sandboxes - I think it can be just as well done in the mainspace, and, as here, it avoids people having made useless edits. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
All of your changes were preserved. None of them were undone. I've suggested to Wasted Time R that further edits not be done via sandbox.[1]Ferrylodge (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I could make reduction edits in small increments, but every edit comment would be the same: "Doing size reduction, this is important but in my (possibly faulty) judgment it's less important than something else." I'm not sure what that would accomplish. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, just use your good judgment, and I'm sure Evil Spartan will understand. Please make the edits as easy to follow as possible, but not easier than possible.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re:Talk Fetus

Regarding your question addressed to me at Talk:Fetus. If you are butting heads with another editor, perhaps you could consider Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Step 6 is especially important for further input. Requesting a 3rd opinion is helpful when there are two users in disagreement. For bigger issues, contacting a subject specific wikiproject, a noticeboard, or even filing a RfC are available to you.

Generally speaking, users are welcome to make BOLD edits. For top tier articles, or for edits that may be controversial, it always help to seek for consensus prior to editing. However, after a bold edit has been made, if it is reverted in good faith and brought up on the talk page, it is almost never appropriate to re-insert the disputed changes after it has been reverted in good faith. This is all part of the WP:BRD, which I myself am quite fond of. The key part here, if there are only two users involved (i.e. one user trying to make the change, and one user trying to revert the change) is to find common ground and reach a compromise or even a temporary solution on the talk page. Again, if coming to an agreement between two users proves too difficult, there are the aforementioned options available to solicited more opinions.

I hope this answers your question. It was a little vague, so I tried to answer in general terms. If you have a specific situation you'd like me to consider or comment on, I'd be glad to look into that (but I have been trying to lay low with the conflict, so I may refuse to add a content relevant opinion if the discussion looks too controversial ;). Good luck!-Andrew c [talk] 02:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said at your talk page, that's a very good answer. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking a bit into this matter, but I don't want to get too involved, so forgive me for that. I'm also a little disappointed in the amount of back and forth editing, and the tone of discourse on the talk page. One last note, please try to be a little more careful when deleting references that are named. This edit caused a citation error (which I have since fixed). Carry on! -Andrew c [talk] 15:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the inadvertently broken link, and for most of your recent comments at the article talk page. I don't have time today to follow up there, but hopefully tomorrow. In the mean time, please be aware that I went to IAA's talk page a few days ago, and basically repeated what you said in your first comment above ("if it is reverted in good faith and brought up on the talk page, it is almost never appropriate to re-insert the disputed changes after it has been reverted in good faith"). In reply, she simply hid my comment and slapped the label "SHUN" on it. Maybe if you could explain the Wikipedia policy on consensus at her talk page, she might be more receptive? I feel like she's just been ramming through whatever changes she likes for months, without consensus, and despite objections and reverts. I'd really prefer not to go through some bureaucratic litigious exercise in order to get things on track. I suspect that a few words from you might work just as well. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aids

Hey, Ferrylodge. I just wanted to say that I wholeheartedly admire your work on abortion. You persevered despite biases present on the wiki, and ultimately you were banned for your efforts; that was clearly unjust, and the arbitration appeal was masterfully handled by you. Although I admit that I handled my arguments very poorly, I'm attempting something similar on Aids right now, and in fact, I have now come under attack by OrangeMarlin, who I remember seeing on your arbitration page. It was kind of funny to see the parallels between my problem and yours when I read through your record, although you did a much better job handling the argument than I did. I was a bit tired and got out of hand, but again, editors are completely biased and unwilling to partake in their responsibility towards guarding against POV.Merechriolus (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I don't know about your situation, but I agree that the arbitration process can lose focus. It would be nice if the person who requested arbitration would identify the single most outrageous diff, so that everyone can focus on it. A dozen people citing dozens of diffs apiece would be fine, if the single most egregioius diff would be identified too. IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


Hello Ferrylodge, I apologize in advance for any rules or Wiki etiquette that I may be breaking. You may also delete my comments, or edit them in any way if you would like. I would send this to you in a personal message or email, but didn't find that option of contacting you. I first got to the abortion page on wiki from a search for 'dorf' re. Tim Conway's character. I was incredulous that it did not have them or even links to them. I looked at the discussion page and have been following the past debate and spin-offs of it for the last several hours, especially your comments. (A form of internet stalking? :-D ) I also looked at the Fetus page and it really is it unbelievable that there would be no color pictures, rather pictures that make the human fetus look alien. I usually look up articles on Wiki that would be considered natural history articles, and *every one* has one or mutiple color pictures. I am sure that you are painfully aware of this. I was motivated to write to you to encourage you to continue your efforts in combating agenda based POV editing. I also would like to congratulate you on your civility, and "well spoken-ness." I feel somewhat intimidated even to write to you. I have a great deal of respect for you from what I have read on the various talk pages as well as from your extraordinary efforts to fight bias. I also want to mention that you were right to keep the talk pages in English. (ref. the Latin tu quoque exchange) I don't speak latin, (I perhaps should study it sometime.) and the inclusion of it in the discussion page confused me. Keep up the excellent effort and good work. Finally, I don't know if it is meaningful to you, but I will offer up this morning's Mass for you and remember you in my Eucharistic Holy Hours. Signed, (a complete newbie) Rainphire ((added)) p.s. I've an uncle who is a patent lawyer, about your age too. You don't live in the twin cities do you? <grin> Ah, Never mind, he doesn't share your political views. Rainphire (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rainphire, thanks for your kind words. You can contact me privately by using "E-mail this user" over at the left-hand-side, if you ever want to. Tim Conway is a funny guy, but I think even he would turn into a sourpuss after editing Wikipedia articles for a few months! Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3R Violation

This is a warning to let you know you have reverted text four times within a day. You may want to self revert your last edit to avoid a 3R violation:

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Your second diff is an edit by you, not me. I'll reserve comment on your other three diffs.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Amis

Hi Ferrylodge: Do you know how to do a accurate crop of a photograph? I added a portrait of Martin Amis to the Martin Amis article, but it has a lot of extra stuff around his head. Nice stuff but takes away the focus from his facial features. Could you help me in any way?-Dwindle dwindle (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You can probably get help at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I've contacted them.-Dwindle dwindle (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John McCain

Hahaha well I'm not so sure I can be called an expert, but I'll be glad to check out the article. I've glanced over it a few times before and it really seems to be great, but I'll make some changes where I see fit and let you know what I think FA-wise in a few days. Thanks for the unexpected drop-in, Happyme22 (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be great. I'll look forward to your verdict.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I left quite a bit of notes on the talk page. It truly is a fascinating article with great potential, and you have done wonderful things with it. Happyme22 (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll go check out your notes. Really, Wasted Time R did almost all the work, I just did some editing of his stuff.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Good work by all of you. I want to give Wasted Time R a barnstar for all the work he did reviewing the article, but I can't figure out which barnstar to give him! Enigma msg! 22:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Ferrylodge, quick question: Is the McCain talk page archived by a bot? At 165 kb, I was going to do it myself, but saw the "Do Not Archive!" in-text note near the archive box. Happyme22 (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm glad for your involvement in that article. I don't know the answer to your question about archiving that article. Actually, generally speaking, I know next to nothing about archiving.
Incidentally, I'm in process of trying to track down a better formal portrait of him for the top of the article. It's still unclear if I'll be able to get one. See you later....Ferrylodge (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not archived by a bot, but some idiot put a giant sign not to archive the top few messages, I guess. Enigma msg! 22:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, I think that the article is definitely GA worthy, and I know that I would support it for FA. So I think the best thing to do right now, to start up the FA process, is to nominate it for GA status. What do you think? Happyme22 (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, a GA nomination sounds like a great idea. Unfortunately, I'm all tied up at work at the moment (not to mention endless ArbCom proceedings). Perhaps you could do it?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I would be happy to. Happyme22 (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I've put up Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Early life and military career of John McCain. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

GA for the main article probably makes sense for now; it will help ramp it up for the expected objections when it goes to FA. I also need to make some fixups/cite upgrades to the main article, to mirror what I did for the subarticle; will get to that in next day or so. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that GA is probably best for now, because it will give the article a boost when going into FA. Happyme22 (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks for the strategery.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on the McCain article. Will keep an eye on it. Paisan30 (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:John McCain

Any idea what happened here? I tried to revert an edit, but instead it removed half the page. Enigma msg! 22:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like everything got straightened out. Sometimes Wikipedia can do wacky, unpredictable, unintended things.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gestational age

I've made some fairly bold edits to the Gestational age article (and the Talk page comments, of course). I would be interested in your thoughts about it. NCdave (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dave, thanks for your message. I understand that you're asking for input in a good-faith effort to improve that article. However, I'm always hyper-sensitive to the Wikipedia policy against "canvassing" and am reluctant to jump in right now to edit that article. See WP:Canvassing. I'm not saying that you've violated that policy, but rather am just saying that I'd rather be safe than sorry.
Generally speaking, I think it would be nice if we could just present one definition of "gestational age", and then say that there are different ways of measuring it. The subject of ages is already confusing enough without the definition of "gestational age" becoming confusing too.
Incidentally, if you ever want to contact me by email, please feel free (see "E-mail this user" over at the left-hand-side). Where in North Carolina are you? Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

Newspapers and magazines get italicized in plain text and cites, but broadcast organizations such as CBS News or CNN do not, nor do wire services such as Associated Press or Reuters. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what I get for copying Obama's article.  :(Ferrylodge (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The online Ch 1 of Nightingale's Song that we link to is just a portion of the chapter, pages 31-35. The online Ch 1 of American Odyssey that we link to is the full chapter, pages 17-34. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No, don't know of cites for the POW and theater medals. Timberg only mentions his getting the Legion of Merit one in a private ceremony at Sec Navy John Lehman's office. Maybe there's some mil database that's open that has these? Has he ever made public his full military file? Wasted Time R (talk) 12:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ima Hogg

Thank you for your help in improving Ima Hogg. I appreciate your taking the initiative to search for more sourcing! Karanacs (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. If you knew my real last name, you would understand why I rarely make fun of other peoples' names. But hers is a hoot!Ferrylodge (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the text (unless they dramatically impact upon WP:WIAFA) can be better covered on the article talk page, so the FAC doesn't become cluttered, risking chasing off subsequent reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay, no problem. I moved the comment from the FAC page to the article talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Better :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have to do spill the beans so early in the game ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :-)) Let 'em wonder :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Miss Ima"

Nice job on "Miss Ima"!
To all of the excellent editors who were part of the Karanacs-led collaboration to bring Ima Hogg to featured status, it was a pleasure working with you on such a fine article about a great lady. Thank you so much for your contribution to this fun collaboration.

Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Due Process

Ferrylodge: I have an issue with your most recent edit to "due process." You wrote:

"Since then, the Supreme Court has decided that numerous substantive rights, that do not appear in the plain text of the Constitution, are nevertheless protected by the Constitution. Thus, citizens no longer rely upon legislatures to protect these rights, and instead rely upon the judiciary."

Let me make it clear: I do not disagree with the sentiment. What you wrote is *often* true, but it's an over-generalization. It's not true across the board. Also, just to be a little more accurate, I'd say, "Citizens are still often *dependant* on Legislature to protect their freedoms, because Constitutions can't, but their freedoms go trampled on, because it's much easier for a handful of wealthy people to get legislature to do what it wants (more often "legal people" than "natural people," if you know what I mean)." But that is my POV. I wouldn't put my POV in the article because it's not NPOV. And it's not sourced. Nor could I find a reliable source for it. I don't think it's a claim that can be verified.

So, to conclude, I don't plan to edit it out, because I defer to you as a more senior editor here. However, in the interest of the integrity of wikipedia as a source of accurate information on law, I'd ask you to reconsider putting that in the article. Non Curat Lex (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Non Curat Lex. It always helps if people provide diffs when referring to particular edits. The material that you refer to was not my most recent edit to that article. Instead, it looks like that edit was on February 9.[6]
Additionally, I'm not sure which part of the quoted material you object to. Do you object to all of it? For example, I think the following sentence is very straightforward, and can be footnoted if necessary: "Since then, the Supreme Court has decided that numerous substantive rights, that do not appear in the plain text of the Constitution, are nevertheless protected by the Constitution"? You quoted this sentence, but then your objections seem to be only about the next sentence: "citizens no longer rely upon legislatures to protect these rights, and instead rely upon the judiciary."
I would be glad to discuss this further with you, either at my talk page, or at yours, or at the article talk page. The idea that I was trying to get across was that prior to the constitutionalization of an SDP right, citizens had to rely on legislatures to protect the right. This seems fairly straightforward, and I hope we can rephrase instead of completely eliminating the idea.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I qouted the whole thing to give context. The first sentence is fine, it's plainly true, no problem there. It's the second sentence that draws the conclusion that I don't think can be supported. Let me try to be a little more specific: You're definitely right that citizens *had* to rely on legislature before incorporation. But it isn't entirely true that citizeens no longer rely on legislatures, (or state governments), to protect their rights after incorporation. Sometimes, state governments are well ahead of the federal courts when it comes to protecting new rights. California's Supreme Court found that anti-miscegenation laws violated the California constitution 20 years before the Supremes heard 'Loving. In the next two months they may well decide that California's equal protection requires legalizing gay marriage. They also protect the right of protestors at the expense of the property rights of mall owners (I'm referring to the infamous Pruneyard case - which actually means that the fat cats could go to Federal court and assert a takings clause violation, but that hasn't happened yet.)
So anyway, I think the second sentence, in its context, is too centered on the developments in the Federal law, and either ignores, or risks telling people to ignore state law as a source of individual rights, incorrectly. Constitutional law casebooks focus on federal constitutional developments, but that does not meant that after the 1930s, state law dissappeared. Plenty of state law decisions on individual rights go into the reporters every year, and that's what really matters. It would be accurate to say that the developments of federal individaul rights law applicable to the states means that individuals who were not satisfied with their states' treatement of them, or their class, had a few new options, but that sentence is barely informative, and probably unnecessary. Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the sentence ("citizens no longer rely upon legislatures to protect these rights, and instead rely upon the judiciary") needs some work. How about: "If these rights were not protected by the federal courts' doctrine of substantive due process, they could nevertheless be protected in other ways, as many of them were prior to being incorporated into substantive due process; for example, these rights could be protected by other provisions of the state or federal constitutions, and alternatively legislatures could provide protection for these rights."Ferrylodge (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
That sounds factual and I don't object, although I'm not sure it's necessary - I mean, won't readers sort-of be aware of that anyway? I don't know. I'll let you make that call.
Also, let me just point up, while I was looking for something else, I came across a source that kind-of (emphasis on kind-of) says something similar to the sentence I objected to. Check out Mishkin, "Federal Courts as State Reformers," 35 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 949, 949-950, 962-63, 966 (1979) (exceprted in Thompson, Sebert, Gross & Robertson, _Remedies: Damages, Equity & Restitution_, 4th ed. (2002), 443-445. Mishkin takes a "federal-centered" view, and Thompson includes Mishkin's article for the point that Federal courts have inserted themselves heavily into the process of protecting individuals from state law interference. Mishkin constitutes an independantly-published source, and would be "verifiable," and quoting him might be a good way to make a slightly more conservative version of your point. But I still don't think you cant quite go all the way from what Mishkin is saying, to what you "concluded."
If you think this is interesting and want to do some further research, you may want to check out that article, and see if we can include that idea. Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and replace the offending sentence with the revised version. Then I'll insert some footnotes next week. I do think it's important to mention how indispensible or dispensible SDP is for protecting peoples' rights.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok - thanks for being open to discussion with me! When I first started working on wikipedia I noticed what a great contributor to law articles you are, and I look forward to working with you more on those articles in the future. :-) Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, it will be my pleasure.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mccain

It is impossible to right align the image since the infobox is there therefore whichever way round it is going to be going against the MOS unless more text is added. IMO the least worst option ATM is to move the portrait image so it doesn't conflict with the heading below. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [7] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Treybien edits

I've written to his talk page ... his edits are making a mess to the FAC norms of the Early life ... article, maybe the same to the main article too. He tends to repeat wlinks and wlink ordinary words and Sandy goes nutso over that. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Tres bien.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MLK

Dude instead of just deleting McCain's vote against MLK holiday you should've added the other stuff you stated. Obviously you don't want the public to know for some reason because you could've just added the extra part. I will continue you to provide factual data/information. If you want to add more info then do so, but don't just delete something because you don't want people to know about it. People like you make Wiki look bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronjohn (talk • contribs) 10:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll reply at his talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] McCain

Thanks very much for your Good Article Review of John McCain. When you get a chance, would you please check if the "natural-born" issue and the "Annapolis image" issue are now adequately addressed? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Most all the issues seem to have been resolved and I have passed the article to GA status. Congrats! --Eustress (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks very much for the review.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats!

Image:Halfstar.png The Half Barnstar
For incredible collaboration to get John McCain up to GA status. Keep up the good work! Eustress (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] McCain FAQ

Yo, response at my talkpage. Skomorokh 19:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The missing text on the FAQ itself must have been an edit conflict that didn't show up when I edited it - I went back in to fix it but you had already. And I assume you figured out the show/hide button to take up less space on the talk page. Sorry for the mixup, it was unintentional. Tvoz |talk 19:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Gallup chart

> Hi WTR. I've slightly edited a chart of yours, here. Feel free to revert back, of course, > but I think it's better this way.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What's different about it? I couldn't tell. I need to be able to update it with more recent poll figures ... Wasted Time R (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. To me, the keys in the middle distract from the message of the content. It also relies on there being a big vertical gap between lines, which wouldn't be the case with e.g. HRC's Gallup ratings or Joe Lieberman's ACU vs ADA scores. That means that the same chart in different articles would float the key around. So I'm in favor of the old way. I expect that many people will click on the chart, which makes it large enough so that size isn't an issue. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind having the key located differently in different articles. It's probably best to look at each article on its own merits. To my eye, having the key off to the right should be avoided if possible, because it creates a whole column of unused white space above the key and below the key. But like I said, feel free to revert. By the way, does the video work okay for you?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] William Bee Ravenel III

Hi—saw your name figuring prominently in the hist of John S. McCain. I just created William Bee Ravenel III, who was McCain's mentor. An interesting person, but sadly I don't have time to bring the article beyond Stub. If you have time... :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The temperament ordering

Don't bother editing it, I know it has lots of issues, I just want opinion on the ordering. I'll then fix it up.... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] McCain

I've contacted the senator's office regarding whether any of his earlier official images might be available. With any luck, we might hear back sometime soon. I would think that, depending on the outcome of the election, an image from when he first entered the national spotlight might be reasonably used as well. John Carter (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] McCain userbox

I used another version of that image that blended in with his hair and stuff...

But thanks for bringing the other pictures to my attention. 8thstar 22:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I like it, His suit blends in too much with the black background. 8thstar 23:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Nixon third opinion

Hey Ferrylodge, I know how busy you are with the McCain article, but I was wondering if you could take a look at the latest discussion at the Richard Nixon talk page. We need a third opinion of whether it is appropriate to highlight Nixon's resignation in the first sentence of the article. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thank-spam

Ferrylodge, just a note of appreciation for your recent support of my request for adminship, which ended successfully with 112 supports, 2 opposes, and 1 neutral. If there's something I've realized during my RFA process this last week, it's that adminship is primarily about trust. I will strive to honour that trust in my future interactions with the community. Many thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you also apparently managed to sort out your problems here some time ago. Here's hoping that's all behind you now :) Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the spam.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] McCain FAC

First, see what happens to the Hillary FAC. If it fails due to future stability grounds (the source of most of its opposes), putting up McCain would be hopeless. If it passes, that might serve as a precedent that McCain could take advantage of. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, we'll wait and see what happens to HRC. I haven't followed that article closely, so I don't know whether the amount of edit-warring there has been greater than at the McCain article. There have been disgareements at the McCain article, but not much rising to the level of an "edit war" IMHO. As for edits other than edit-warring, I think we're just about through making edits to the McCain article in response to the previous FAC, in response to the good article review, and in response to the peer review. So, I expect a period of tranquility to begin about now at the McCain article (though I wouldn't bet money on it).Ferrylodge (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with the Electoral history section. The Hillary article has one, and no one's ever complained about it. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the Hillary FAC has finally been failed. Reading the tea leaves at User talk:Raul654#FAC followup, I'd conclude Raul654 failed it on 1e stability grounds ... which means a John McCain FAC would be hopeless. But you can judge for yourself. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please see Bobby Jindal talk section.

Thanks. DanielZimmerman (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks on quote clarification

In the McCain article. I was trying, per talk, to be less vague about "has entered American political lore" (which sounds like WP:OR). I apologize for misattributing "the ugly underside" thing, but the fact McCain himself used those words makes it work even better there IMO. Thanks for the touchup. LotLE×talk 03:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I can't promise to continue supporting the current formulation, but my current opinion is that it seems to work at least as well as the previous formulation.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Wasted Time R raises a good point: it's often better to use secondary quotes rather than quotes from McCain. His reformulation may well be an improvement.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Analyses/Analysis

You're right. My spell check didn't have "analyses" in it. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for helping with this one.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for comment

I invite you to HUMOR me---- if poss. ----with input on "re-titling" proposals re two 2008 Barack Obama presidential campaign ("daughter-") articles, both here and here. :^) — Justmeherenow (   ) 08:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with Democratic delegate count

link and link. Two different delegate counts by Obama and Clinton. Any idea? We need to find a way to agree on a number so it's consistent. Enigma message 04:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I see its all harmonized now at 2233 to 1889. Either consistently right or consistently wrong.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] McCain disability

I'm posting here instead of at Talk:John McCain because I'm not sure I understand your edit summary. You deleted the 2007 value of the pension, saying it was out of chrono order.

The pension was awarded when McCain left the service. Most pensions of this sort have a cost-of-living adjustment, and I'm assuming this one does, too. To give its original dollar amount would be misleading. The best way to tell the reader the size of the pension is to state its current dollar value. When he left the service in 1981, he received a pension that would buy approximately as much in goods and services as $58,000 would buy today. The figure from 2007 is the best indication of what the value of the pension was in 1981.

Does that answer your objection? JamesMLane t c 02:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. The edit summary mentioned two things: (1) that the 2007 payment is out of sequence chronologically in the article, and also (2) that the 2007 payment is not mentioned in the sub-article. That second thing is not insignificant; this article is written according to WP:Summary style, and therefore the John McCain article should summarize what's in the sub-article, rather than introducing new stuff.
But getting back to point (1), I don't see why it would be inadequate to mention that McCain received a "substantial" pension or some such thing, instead of giving a 2007 amount. The point that you seem to be trying to make (and that is made in your cited source) is that McCain is still receiving a disability pension, and that's not only out of sequence chronologically, but also may implicate WP:Point. If you want to get across the idea that he's still receiving a disability pension, then it's best to do so in a current section such as the section on his 2008 campaign, but it would still be necessary to persuade people that it should go into the sub-article first.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand about the daughter article, and I have that window open now to try to incorporate the information there (a process slowed by my having too many non-Wikipedia things going on!).
As to the information itself, though -- no, to the extent that there's a "POINT" to be made, it's that in 1981 McCain was awarded a lifetime disability pension. That's part of his service record. As to the size, we could characterize it as "substantial", but someone might object, not unreasonably, that that wording was trying to play up how much money McCain is getting. "Hell, I wouldn't call it 'substantial' unless it hit six figures!" Instead of trying to decide how to characterize it, we can just give the exact information and let the reader decide whether that amount is "substantial". JamesMLane t c 02:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Nope, it makes no sense to me. Why is it important for readers to understand how much income he received from a pension in 1974, but not important for readers to understand what his salary was from other jobs during the 1970s? You seem to be trying to make the point (as was your cited source) that McCain is still receiving a disability pension. This may or may not belong in the John McCain articles at Wikipedia, but his 2007 pension situation clearly does not belong out of chronological sequence in an article or section about the 1970s.
This is a content discussion, so I think further discussion would more properly go at an article talk page, okay?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)