Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anythingyouwant (talk | contribs) at 23:29, 1 September 2008 (No, it was a rat!!!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Archive 9: 19 February 2008 to 15 June 2008.

Archive 10: 15 June 2008 to 27 June 2008.

Chocolate

I think that message on my talk page was a clue....

Oh, that's really not fair :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, very tasty. Thanks.  :-))) Cash later.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Cruel and unusual punishment? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

How do you mean, Sandy? It is kind of cruel to give chocolate that you can see but can't really grab. But I'm sure it's the thought that counts.  :)Ferrylodge (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to snap off some of this chocolate, if you can!Ferrylodge (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: McCain FAC

FAC nom is a ton of work, and I think the chances of the main article passing now are too low (due to the future stability objection; of course, I could be wrong) for me to want to do it. Regardless, you should be the nom, as FAC is 90% MoS conformance and related style issues, and you're the person most responsible for the main article's current style (cite formats, footnote density, section names, image rights, wording choices, linking choices, etc etc etc). And in any case, I'll be off on vacation shortly, happily away from computers. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

We'll be waiting for you.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me Ferrylodge. I'll watch over the article, I've added it to my watchlist. Thanks, --Lord₪Sunday 19:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey request

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Misplaced Pages. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, BCeagle0312 (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Stuff

Thank you for the stuff hidden below. However, I am not currently editing the abortion/fetus/related articles. I find it futile to try to reason with rude, POV-pushing editors at those articles, and with administrators who turn a blind eye or worse. I may try again some time later, but I do not have high hopes of rendering those articles neutral or reliably sourced. Thank you for your inquiry.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Some Info

Seems that the following info should be included under "Health" on the abortion page. Of course, you'll first have to research and find the data in the original sources.

Abortion Linked Condition Contributes to Growing Number of Infant Deaths By Tim Waggoner

OTTAWA, July 30, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - According to new statistics released today from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), premature babies - babies born too soon and too small - accounted for a growing proportion of infant deaths. When linked with previous studies that have shown that abortion increases a woman's chance of having a baby prematurely, the conclusion is that women who have had abortions are more likely to bear children who die as infants or suffer from severe health issues.

According to "Infant Mortality Statistics from the 2005 Period Linked Birth/Infant Death Data Set," Vol. 57, No. 2, of the National Vital Statistics Report, low birth weight and preterm birth are leading causes of infant mortality and the rates of both have increased steadily since the mid-1980s.

Babies who died of preterm-related causes accounted for 36.5 percent of infant deaths in 2005, up from 34.6 percent in 2000.

More than a half million babies are born premature (less than 37 weeks gestation) each year and those who survive face the risk of life long health consequences, such as breathing and feeding problems, cerebral palsy, and learning problems.

Mortality rates for infants born even a few weeks early, or "late preterm" (between 34 weeks of gestation) were three times those for full-term infants.

The findings of the NCHS help identify abortion as a leading cause of infant mortality, with former studies having revealed that women who have had abortions in the past are much more likely to give birth prematurely.

An article appearing in a 2007 Journal of Reproductive Medicine concluded that nearly 32 percent of "very preterm" U.S. births, that is, before 32 weeks gestation, are due to the mother having had a prior abortion.

Furthermore, after analyzing data on 1,943 very preterm births, 276 moderately preterm babies and 618 full-term controls, Dr. Caroline Moreau of Hopital de Bicetre and colleagues concluded in 2005 that women with a history of abortion were 1.5 times more likely to give birth very prematurely (under 33 weeks gestation), and 1.7 times more likely to have a baby born extremely (under 28 weeks gestation) preterm. Their findings were reported in the April issue of the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, a peer-reviewed medical journal.

Featus disposal

McCain camp article

I don't have time right now, but maybe you would like to respond to some of what Art is saying over at Talk:John McCain presidential campaign, 2008? --Happyme22 (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That's understandable. But maybe WTR will jump in. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

McCain

because otherwise it's hard to read sentences that have got loads of references breaking them up. most recently promoted FAs are sensible in use of references, kind regards Tom (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've responded at the article talk page, here.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

recent vandalism

What you reported as 'hacking' at AN/I wasn't hacking so much as very sophisticated vandalism. Since templates often call other templates, a page that uses several different templates (and almost all pages do) has a large web of possible entry points for vandals. for example, John McCain has

    * Template:! (protected)
    * Template:2008 U.S. presidential election
    * Template:AZ-FedRep (semi-protected)
    * Template:Age (protected)
    * Template:Ambox (protected)
    * Template:Birth date and age (protected)
    * Template:Citation (protected)
    * Template:Citation/core (protected)
    * Template:Clear (protected)
    * Template:CongLinks (semi-protected)
    * Template:Convert (protected)
    * Template:Convert/LoffAoffDbSoff (protected)
    * Template:Convert/LoffAonSoff (protected)
    * Template:Convert/kg (protected)
    * Template:Convert/lb (protected)
    * Template:Convert/pround (protected)
    * Template:Current U.S. Senators (semi-protected)
    * Template:CurrentCongDeleg (semi-protected)
    * Template:Dablink (protected)
    * Template:Dmoz (protected)
    * Template:End (protected)
    * Template:FixBunching (semi-protected)
    * Template:Future election (protected)
    * Template:Imdb name (protected)
    * Template:Infobox Officeholder (protected)
    * Template:Infobox Officeholder/Office (protected)
    * Template:Infobox Officeholder/Personal data (protected)
    * Template:Infobox Senator (semi-protected)
    * Template:John McCain (semi-protected)
    * Template:JohnMcCainSegmentsUnderInfoBox (semi-protected)
    * Template:Lifetime (protected)
    * Template:Link (protected)
    * Template:Lower (protected)
    * Template:MONTHNAME (protected)
    * Template:MONTHNUMBER (protected)
    * Template:Main (protected)
    * Template:MySpace (protected)
    * Template:Myspace (protected)
    * Template:Navbox (protected)
    * Template:Navbox with columns (protected)
    * Template:Nowrap (protected)
    * Template:Nowrap begin (protected)
    * Template:Nowrap end (protected)
    * Template:Party shading/Democratic (protected)
    * Template:Party shading/Independent (protected)
    * Template:Party shading/Republican (semi-protected)
    * Template:Persondata (protected)
    * Template:Portal (protected)
    * Template:Pp-meta (protected)
    * Template:Pp-semi-protected (protected)
    * Template:Quote (protected)
    * Template:Redirect (protected)
    * Template:Refbegin (protected)
    * Template:Refend (protected)
    * Template:Reflist (protected)
    * Template:Rnd (protected)
    * Template:Rnd/a (protected)
    * Template:Rnd/b (protected)
    * Template:Rnd/c4dec0 (protected)
    * Template:S-aft (protected)
    * Template:S-bef (protected)
    * Template:S-inc (protected)
    * Template:S-off (protected)
    * Template:S-par (protected)
    * Template:S-ppo (protected)
    * Template:S-start (protected)
    * Template:S-ttl (protected)
    * Template:See also (protected)
    * Template:Sisterlinks-author (semi-protected)
    * Template:Tnavbar (protected)
    * Template:Tnavbar-header (protected)
    * Template:U.S. Senator box (protected)
    * Template:USRepPresNominees (semi-protected)
    * Template:USRepSuccessionBox (protected)
    * Template:USSenAZ (semi-protected)
    * Template:United States presidential election, 2008 (semi-protected)
    * Template:Ushr (protected)
    * Template:WPMILHIST Infobox style (protected)
    * Template:· (protected)
    * Template:·wrap (protected)
    * Template:• (protected)
    * Template:•wrap (protected)

LOTS of templates transcluded on to it. That provides several vectors for a vandal to insert image and style changes to the page (obscuring the 'edit' link, filling the page content with shock images, etc). Since this sort of vandalism impacts many pages at once, templates are slowly becoming fully protected and semi-protected preventatively. So it is still vandalism but it is considerably more sophisticated than past attempts. I hope that helps explain what happened. Despite the topical nature of the vandalism, this is not targeted per se, this sort of vandalism has been ongoing for some time, usually from accounts answering to "GRAWP" (long story). Again, I hope this helps. Have a good day! Protonk (talk) 01:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Glad to know Misplaced Pages's on top of the situation.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism comes from unprotected or semi-protected templates, so that significantly narrows the field. It also can come from an unprotected image. You might examine all of the semi- and unprotected templates to see if you can get those protected, to avoid future vandalism. You can see a list of templates for any article by viewing the article in edit mode, and scrolling to the bottom of the page where you'll find a list of transcluded templates. I left some MoS concerns on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent)The folks at ANI have protected all templates that are connected to the article in question. See here. Thanks for visiting, Sandy. Of course you had to also find some MOS violations!  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

By viewing in edit mode, you can see that they are not all protected; some are semi-protected, meaning that sleeper vandals can still get to them, and that could be an issue as elections approach. Also, have someone protect the images. Too tired to sort the MoS thing tonight; it doesn't have an easy fix, but you're not supposed to mirror (flip) images, so the only way to fix both issues is to juggle things around. Tired, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: John McCain

You're welcome.

Images can be protected here, but we generally don't preemptively protect images unless they are extremely visible, such as the ones on the Main Page. As far as having to full-protect the templates, you may be right, but not an incredible amount of people know how to vandalize that way, and we want to allow as many people as possible to edit as many pages as possible. If any of the semi-protected templates are vandalized, we will most likely full-protect the vandalized template, but it is rare to full-protect such uncommonly used templates preemptively.

BTW, the way to find template vandalism like that is to:

1. Go to an unvandalized page and click on "edit this page".
2. In your browser's address bar, change the name of the page you are editing to the name of the page that has been vandalized (remember to use underscores, "_" in place of spaces.)
3. Click "go" and it will open the edit box for the page that has been vandalized. Scroll down, and you will see a list of templates that have been transcluded in the page. Open up all the ones that are not "protected" (full-protected) and look at the template's histories until you find one that has been edited recently.
4. Revert vandalism and report the vandal to WP:AIV and mention that they are a "template vandal".
5. Sit back, relax, and revel in the knowledge that no vandal on the face of the earth can outsmart you! :-)

Thanks for reporting the vandalism. Not many people watch templates, and John McCain is a very high-visibility article. Cheers! J.delanoy_adds 02:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's called Hagger vandalism and has nothing to do with his brother, Grawp. And for the record, Hagger is sorry for vandalising John McCain. His intentions were to actually vandalise the article on Barrack Obama, although no one noticed it there. 86.29.131.167 (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for your comment

Here.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 23:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I commented there.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wudja happen to recall

Why Mac's first memoir jacket's display under fair use was decided as OK? (Should you respond, thanks for accomodating my laziness.)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 20:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Donkey shorn.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 20:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Bitter shorn.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain FAC

Will be away much of the day, but then will get to it. I'm still behind on the main article — never reviewed the wave of footnote reduction changes, and am still planning to do something about exact dates. Also some preexisting stylistic concerns about cites. Also fyi, I'm going to comment the issue of the changed background in the top photo, not as an objection myself (since I lost the argument back when) but to alert others in case they find it objectionable. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful idea nominating McCain for FA status! I've given my support and am available to help if you need me. Best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Happyme22, we'll see what happens. I figured it wouldn't hurt to give it a try. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI I'm now through with all the FAC MoS conformance checklist stuff I was planning to do, in addition to the previous content changes. So I don't plan on anything further unless in reaction to FAC comments. Or I happen to spot something by accident. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll just keep on presuming that you love the new picture at the top.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It passed

Check out the gold star. Congrats! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be sure to keep it watchlisted, though I usually don't know enough about what you, WTR and others are discussing, disabling me from frequently jumping into discussions. I will edit where I see fit, however, and help you wherever possible. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 07:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be damned! It passed without any opposes at all. Last thing I would have expected. The Hillary FAC in April/May got at least a dozen opposes on future stability grounds, at time when she had at most a 20% chance of getting the nomination. McCain gets no opposes when he has a 100% chance of getting the nomination. Go figure ... Maybe everyone was on vacation or watching the Olympics ... Good call on putting it up ... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Award

		United States barnstar of national merit
		I award you the barnstar of national merit in recognition of your ceaseless contributions of excellence in the United States Senator John McCain article and biographical series. —Justmeherenow

 ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 19:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan

Here is the page history and three chronological discussions, starting with Talk:Ronald_Reagan#FAR. Here's the general lowdown:

1. On July 30, User:Jimmuldrow inserted a section desribing Reagan's "environmental policies"
2. I reverted, citing the fact that this article is about Ronald Reagan the man, not entirely about Reagan's presidency, as well as WP:NPOV and WP:SS, but I encouraged the user to place a NPOV paragraph related to this subject into Domestic policy of the Reagan administration, a subarticle.
3. The user reverted my edit, saying, "Why talk about Reagan's Presidency but not his policies? If I left out more positive environmental stuff, add facts in instead of removing facts with references."
4. User:SandyGeorgia reverted that edit saying, "Discuss on talk, marginally related to Reagan, likely belongs elsewhere"
5. Jimmuldrow then nominated the article for a featured article review, and created a talk page discussion (under his IP address, later signed properly).
6. On July 31, Many discussions took place, including those at the talk page and the FAR. At both, I outlined my reasons for opposing the insertion of this full paragraph and closing the FAR. The FAR was quickly closed by User:Marskell.
7. Following the closure of the FAR, Jimmuldrow inserted a very similar paragraph to the first one.
8. I shortened down the paragraph, placed it in another paragraph (still getting the general idea across to the reader), thanked Jimmuldrow for his attempts to include necessary context but again encouraged him to place the full paragraph in Domestic policy of the Reagan administration per WP:SS.
9. The user began a talk page section and reverted me in article space.
10. I responded on the talk page and proposed re-implementing this per WP:WEIGHT, WP:SS, and WP:SIZE. I did not revert in article space.
11. After two days without a response from Jimmuldrow, I implemented my proposal. He reverted just over an hour after I put in, saying, "this is closer to what the cited references say".
12. I did not revert him, but commented at the talk page.
13. The following day, Jimmuldrow responded, asking a question regarding WP:WEIGHT.
14. I responded, answering his question in the hopes that we can reach an understanding.
15. Following my answer, he cut out one sentence but apparently some non-NPOV language that we had previously taken out is back. The new paragraph is about Social Security and the environment, two unrelated ideas as well, which I expressed in another comment at the talk page discussion.
16. User:SandyGeorgia commented regarding WP:SS, saying "The issue is whether the requested text is so central to Reagan's bio that it must be in this article, or whether it better belongs in another article. The current word count at Reagan is 10,082; you haven't made a good argument that the text you want to add is compelling and central to our understanding of Reagan that it simply must be included in this article, and can't be included instead in a daughter article."
17. I commented on Sandy's point and said that Jim should provide a rationale for why this material is vital to understanding Ronald Reagan. I removed the mention.
18. Two days later, on August 12, Jimmuldrow inserted a run-on sentence combining four different ideas into one paragraph, did not acknowledged Sandy's comment or mine on the talk page, and has not stated why he inserted his most recent edit. He did, however, post something regarding criticisms, which I have yet to understand.

This has been occurring for roughly two weeks. The thing that troubles me is the failure to communicate with him and his blatant disregard for what has been said on the discussion page. This has to end, and any comments on this and the discussion below this (on the article talk page) regarding the AMT, are strongly appreciated. --Happyme22 (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll second the request for an educated editor to take a look at the AMT question. I think Happyme22 and I disagree on the relative importance of Reagan's contribution to this current tax issue.Mattnad (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message. I'll try to get to it later today. See you then.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain watch

I actually tend to watch only low activity pages. I only have a chance to check edits a couple times a week. I have stopped watching pages like Britney Spears and Michelle Obama because I don't want to contribute my time with highly active page watching.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inviting your comment

Here (and also, if possible, here?)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 05:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

We certainly had the same take on the article (I had an edit conflict with you and ended up saying more or less the same thing you did) — but alas, I'm not really a Paris fan. She just doesn't do much for me (although I will admit that the version of her in that video was more appealing than other "incarnations" of Ms. Hilton I've seen). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep — I live in Cheshire, not too far away from you. But I'm down in Virginia right now, taking care of my father (who had a hip replacement two weeks back). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we've already crossed paths, and didn't know it! :) Best, —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't nice.

Why did you attack me on the McCain talk page when all I did was point out that one user was making an attempt at satire?Worldruler20 (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This was a lame attempt at humor, not an attack at all. I was simply indicating the hope that your user name is not entirely accurate, because I am kind of afraid about encountering the actual ruler of the world.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, , well no hard feelings then. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.Worldruler20 (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: John McCain vandalism

Sure thing, I've just added the article to my watchlist, and on the side congrats on getting the article through its second FAC. -- Comandante {Talk} 16:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see this

The cultural and political image of McCain and Obama is missing a major point. This point is impeccably sourced by multiple reliable sources. An editor who seems to edit like an Obama supporter immediately removed it http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Barack_Obama&diff=234628289&oldid=234625530

Why is this allowed to happen? I am a POV supporter of Misplaced Pages. I fight tooth and nail for Misplaced Pages. I am loyal to Misplaced Pages and not a political candidate. We need to support Misplaced Pages and not be a campaign tool (even if accidently done) for a politician. Oprahwasontv (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The best place to talk about this is at the talk page of the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

palin

Where are all the veep reports coming from? Young Trigg (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain

Hi, there are no high muckity mucks on Misplaced Pages AFAIK. Can you point to where someone told you it has to be on the right because images should not conflict with infoboxes which they will if you put them on the right too close to the infobox. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hi just to add, yes it does conflict with the infobox on 2 different resolutions I tried. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just to say well done for finding the solution and sorry for being a little tetchy last night. It turns out the white space only occurs in Internet Explorer after all. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem.  :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

VP

Dude - WHY?? ... -- Y not be working? 15:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't like her???Ferrylodge (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Dude! She went to N. Idaho U. and her husband is a fricking fisherman!! Who cares about her convictions - why the hell is she qualified to serve when McCain kicks the bucket? -- Y not be working? 17:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Y, I realize that you're not eligible for the presidency, but you must not be bitter about it.  :) Seriously, though, check out the article on Harry Truman. He never went to any college at all, much less N. Idaho U. and Truman's profession had been as a bank teller and haberdasher. Ronald Reagan went to Eureka College (not exactly the Ivy League).

And Y, your gender is showing. Most of the first-ladies in U.S. history have been housewives. Would you feel better if Palin's spouse were a housewife instead of a commercial fisherman and oil field worker?

The remaining days of the campaign will either indicate that Palin is qualified or not, but it will not turn on her alma mater or her spouse's profession. I, for one, would be damn proud to have a First Gentleman who actually does some exciting work, instead of a pencil-pushing paper-shuffler (such as ourselves).Ferrylodge (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh... you can be an upperclass housewife... he's a fisherman who never completed college. And it's first dude, my friend. Which is just awful... -- Y not be working? 18:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:McCain-Palin 2008 logo.jpg

Since Image:McCain-Palin 2008 logo.jpg was removed from all articles, I've tagged it for deletion as an unused non-free image. MBisanz 00:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea, I saw it in an old version of the article and followed it to the page. If you want to re-add it though, that is fine by me, seems like a decent image. MBisanz 03:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz 04:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello again

Hello yet again Ferrylodge. How are you doing in these troubled times? I got laid off from my job and will be doing some per diem work on some bankruptcy cases in the near future. Here on Misplaced Pages, I am killing time by expanding our coverage of American law firms, and moving these U.S. Supreme Court cases onto their proper court lists. If you are interested in helping me in either of these tasks, hit me back on my talk page. See ya. --Eastlaw (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Made me laugh

Saw this edit summary. Now THAT would be a scandal... :) - Kelly 08:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, I suppose?

Being interviewed by the Times... uh, that's a pretty big thing right there. I'm pretty sure that would be one of the highlights of my life, even if it was a passing quote about something completely unimportant and irrelevant. And, of course, great job doing excellent WP work. -- Kicking222 (not signed in) 02:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm really impressed by what a good job the reporter did. I'll have to consider buying that rag again.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 02:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hee hee - rag is right! But you did us proud. Kelly 02:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you did good. Showed Misplaced Pages and yourself in a good light, and helped with accurate reportage. He seems like a good reporter, too. --jpgordon 04:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going to complain to him about Arbcom, but then thought better of it.  :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 04:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to get a link? I'm starting to not think ill of you (how's that for a roundabout compliment?), and maybe reading the article will change my mind.  :) OrangeMarlin 05:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

MSM coverage is here in WaPo for 2007 and here in NYT for 2008. I'm going for 60 Minutes next year. :)Ferrylodge (talk) 05:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, very interesting. But if you get on 60 minutes, and all the girls think you're hot, your ego will be insufferable.  :) OrangeMarlin 08:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If you get on 60 minutes, take me with you - I edited Sarah Palin back when she was elected and deserve a piece of the action - talk about prescience! :) -- Y not be working? 22:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. Then we'll both have insufferable egos (or more insufferable).  :)Ferrylodge (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I already have an insufferable ego. But I am deservedly insufferable. For example, the New York Times continuously covers my website... it's cuz I rock. -- Y not be working? 22:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean this website, Y? And I'm telling you, that was a rat and not a squirrel.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Rat? Squirrel? I thought it was Moose & Squirrel? OrangeMarlin 22:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The bit about the rat and squirrel was inside info. Apologies for that. Y seems to think that NYC isn't crawling with hordes of rats, and he contends that what I saw was actually a mere squirrel. It certainly was not a moose.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ummmm. I lived in NYC. And yes, there are squirrels. But a lot more rats. But they're both rodents. And they both carry vermin. Not sure it matters that much. OrangeMarlin 23:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah this website, which else? :) OM, we had a beer once. We saw a squirrel. He keeps editwarring with me over the species - troll! -- Y not be working? 23:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)