User talk:JamesMLane

edit count | edit summary usage

Click here to start a new section. (The edit summary will be created automatically; it will be the same as the heading of the new section.)

Archives: Archives tables of contents, Archive1, Archive2, Archive3, Archive4, Archive5

Deletion discussion

Hi. As someone who's contributed to deletion discussions concerning micronation articles before, I wonder if you wouldn't mind taking a look at this one. --Gene_poole 00:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Tell no lie on WP:AIV

Hi James, just to let you know that Tell no lie's actions are not simple vandalism, and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of WP:AIV. A quick glance shows me that he violated WP:3RR. If so, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR is the best place to report it. For other cases, perhaps Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard is the place to report it. Cheers, Deathphoenix ʕ 02:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Iraq War escalation advocates

talk: Yaron Brook

Hi James, thanks for your comment. And concerning this: I find a discussion that's gotten rather far afield. Absolutely true, sorry! I somehow got curious in what feels like a peculiar subset of the human species and the "objectivist" and their peculiar moral system. I discovered something I so far would have considered pure red-neck ideology.

I think what we are lacking is moral assuredness, moral confidence in our cause, and in that sense I think this administration have been moral cowards in not asserting that we do have a moral right, that we don’t need anybody else to tell us we are right, it’s enough to say we believe this is America’s self-interest. That’s the moral justification for going in. And I think that it’s not so much that we are seeking the American people’s approval, indeed president Bush has done very little in trying to seek the American people’s approval. We focused our entire attention in trying to seek the world’s approval, as if we need their permission to pursue our self-interest, instead of focusing on the American people. Which I think, I think the American people would grant this president the authority to do what is necessary to defend us, if he made the case to us. But they spent most of the time at the UN rather than in front of us the Americans. Should the U.S. Invade Iraq Without U.N. Approval? Thursday, March 6, 2003, Yaron Brook

Maybe I should delete some of my verbal meanderings, but this is really fascinating stuff, at least from an old Europe point of view.

What a wonderful spelling champion you are!!! 13 is one of my favorite numbers. LeaNder 19:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Boehner

You seemingly inadvertently removed clarifying text when you made another quotation insertion. I have since replaced this text, leaving your new quotation. Skyemoor 19:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, you removed it the second time . Just read your bio, though, and we are on the same team, so to speak. I believe the words add necessary context, just as the words you added following the quote you provided supply needed context. Skyemoor 22:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

EVP

Thanks for your comments. My attempt at a discuss-cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD%2C_revert%2C_discuss_cycle#Tactics) had obviously failed. I hope you'll stay on and look in the article and Talk page from time to time, as it desperately needs some balancing opinion. --- LuckyLouie 06:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Geoffrey Giuliano

Hello. What has one to do about Geoffrey Giuliano? I dislike to let him have his way, but one cannot keep reverting his self-aggrandizing editings. As I wrote about the afd, I'd vote to keep a very lean article. Is there some policy (and, more important, some way to enforce it) to keep him from putting again and again his puffery, as you appropriately defined it? All the best, Goochelaar 21:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you and Dmz5 wrote. Let's revert a bit and see. Bye, Goochelaar 09:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, for two or three weeks Notinsane refrained from editing the article about Geoffrey Giuliano. But it appears that now an anonymous version of him, or someone other, is back... --Goochelaar 10:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

EVP

Hello, on the advice of LuckyLouie, I am going to try to put together Arbcom case for this article. He says there are longstanding problems. I have looked at the talkpage, and I see that ScienceApologist was very involved. At his page, it says he is on break. Do you know how to contact him? -MsHyde 02:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

More tofu?

Your Q on another page. No don't touch the stuff. Cut sugar, bread, cakes, French fries. Bigger emphasis on protein, (meat for instance), veg, salads, fruits. Started getting relief from day one.It can be difficult to stick with at times, but I just try to go back to it. That's only this last 3 months. Had been suffering for a year.Goodbye 2 07:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my spelling

If two demon landlords offer to rent out a flat, the lower price is the evil of two lessors. ;) Chivista 20:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a tenant myself, so I'd consider the higher price to be the evil of two lessors.  :) JamesMLane t c 20:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, with you and spelling? --kizzle 22:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. I feel an obligation to earn the "spelling champ" title that you bestowed upon me. JamesMLane t c 23:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Military service controversy

There's discussion waiting for you at John Kerry Military Service Controversy. KevinPuj 11:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Hi James. There is a content dispute going on over at the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth article and talk page re one of my contributions to the "Book" section. Specifically, it hinges on another editor's interpretation of what constitutes "original research." As you seem knowledgeable on the topic and fair minded, perhaps you will come over and comment? Thanks. --EECEE 21:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ken Bennett

We can't have a section entitled "controversies" when there's absolutely no evidence that the two events cited are actually controversial. There's been no sources cited to assert that the reimbursement matter had any public interest or comment, nor is there any evidence that Mr. Bennett was at all involved in any sort of abuse of power w/r/t his son's criminal case. We can't have unsupported assertions, speculation and innuendo in Wikipedia biographies. Thanks for understanding. FCYTravis 15:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Geoffrey Giuliano

Hi this is Geoffrey and I WAS born on September 11, 1953. My email is milesfar@hotmail.com. If you write me I can email you a scan of my birth certificate. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.120.188.42 (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

No! You would save yourself and everyone else a great deal of time if you would actually read the Wikipedia policies that we keep pointing out to you -- in this instance, WP:ATT. Wikipedia is not a forum for original research. Material that appears in our articles must be verifiable through public sources. If the information about your birthdate has been published somewhere (in print or online), we can use it and cite the publication. If not, then it wouldn't matter if your mother, the attending physician, and the City Clerk all came to my door waving birth certificates and hospital records and notarized affidavits. JamesMLane t c 03:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see source article number one in Giuliano's references for CORRECT spelling of ex wife's name.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.188.42 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ken Bennet

Thanks for the heads-up. I'm not an AZ person myself either (I'm in Brooklyn), but law school has taught me how to research and write. NTK 03:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the Haslingden article

Thank you for saving the Bruce Haslingden article from deletion. I really appreciated it. Chris 20:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Phil Paulson

James, can't seem to reach you contact me at alvrdb-mail at yahoo dot com You are a fount of information and a guide to Wikipedia. I started the Paulson article that you have contributed to. Many questions Thanks Al RodbellArodb 15:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Something to make your day!

Teddey has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Teddey 21:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits

Sue Secretary for CFL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doodysprinkles (talk • contribs) 01:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Naturopathic Medicine

Whoa! Be careful. You just called me and my cohorts in medical school quacks! It is very apparent that you don't quite understand the US naturopathic medical system, community and philosophy. Do you know about our educational standards? That we study exactly what the allopaths study? (minus the focus on palliative and suppressive pharmaceuticals). That we are one of many groups in the health community that are trying to help fix the broken healthcare system? How about that our degree is designated as "First Professional? Not to mention that there is a handful of MD's in our program who have left their field to learn how to give better medical care? If you want to add your "critiques", I and the rest of accredited and licensed ND's welcome any that you can conjure up. We've been batting back the criticisms from the AMA and PHARMA since the 50's. And to be clear, we use SOME homeopathy, but it is not fair to compare our profession of primary care providing physicians to the pseudoscientific aspects of homeopathy. If you need my assistance in better understanding our profession, feel free to contact me anytime. Or better yet, see a licensed ND in NYC. They will spend an hour with you, try to get to the root cause and won't just suppress your symptoms with a pharmaceutical that will give you side effects. For all the chronic healthcare issues that our country faces and the inadequacy of our current allopathic medical system, I am surprised that people complain about the work we do. Thanks for your input. --Travisthurston 16:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Travisthurston has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Gay Left

Yes, I closed this as withdrawn by nominator, which defaulted to keep, based on the discussion on the talkpage about finding sources and the keep !votes at the afd. Looking at page histories, EliminatorJR (talk · contribs) moved the article from "Gay Left" to Gay Left on May 25. It was tagged as a copyvio of content from http://www.gayleft1970s.org/intro.asp and http://www.gayleft1970s.org/ by Butseriouslyfolks (talk · contribs) and speedy deleted as such by Sr13 (talk · contribs) on May 26. So it looks like that is why they are redlinks now.--Isotope23 13:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep. It was my understanding when I closed the AfD that sources were being produced for this article. I suspect the originator has some sort of association with that website so releasing the content to be used on Wikipedia is an option as well. Oh wait... I just noticed the originator created the article at Gay left in a different form.--Isotope23 14:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ex post facto law

Thank you for your help. Could I ask if I understand correctly that any law decriminalising something is not an ex post facto law? In other words, an amnesty law would not be an ex post facto law? Respectfully Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 00:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Our article on Ex post facto includes an amnesty within its scope. For U.S. Constitutional purposes, however, I think that's inaccurate. My understanding is that the prohibition applies only to making criminal something that was previously legal, or increasing the penalty for something that was previously illegal.

On that basis, a mere amnesty for war criminals (in the sense of shielding them from criminal liability) wouldn't violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. On the other hand, I think I've read that the MCA purports to remove the illegality of those past acts as a basis for a private civil suit. That might violate the Constitutional rights of individuals who were injured by the criminal conduct. Before the MCA, they had a cause of action against the people who ordered them tortured or whatever. If the MCA takes that cause of action away from them, it might be held to be taking their property without due process of law. JamesMLane t c 01:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/A.C. Milan squad

Thanks for bring some neutral comment to the discussion.--ClaudioMB 15:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoops

Mostly, when I close an AfD debate, it's as Delete. So I don't have the reflex to add the "this article was the subject of etc" box to the talk page; thanks for catching that for me. DS 12:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Seth Finkelstein

The Seth Finkelstein article is now being discussed on WP:DRV. Since your name has been mentioned in the discussion, you may wish to comment. DES ^(talk) 14:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Nleobold

How do we get a cessation to his vandalism of Rep Nadler's and Councilwoman Glick's bios? This personal soap=box business is getting tiresome. Dogru144 15:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, the easiest way to deal with these True Believer types, who don't respond to explanations of Wikipedia policies, is patience. A few of them learn how we do things and become productive editors. Most of them go right on edit warring, convinced that they can wear us down. After a few days or a few weeks or maybe even a few months, though, they discover that they can't. Then they go away.

Yes, his edits are tiresome, but ginning up any of the dispute resolution procedures would be even more tiresome. For now, at least, I think we should just keep reverting anything objectionable. With more than one of us monitoring it, no one person has to bear too much of the burden or risk a 3RR violation. JamesMLane t c 18:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair points; and good suggestions for perspective. Just giving a Independence Day cheers/heads up; and Rep. Nadler is getting smeared and a tad libeled, again. Have a great holiday. Cheers, Dogru144 14:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Your clerking Idea

Hi James, that sounds like something that might have potential. I think that you should post that on the official WT:RFA under a new topic, and see what the community thinks of the notion. Thanks, Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

DarkFalls has replied. keep checking back there, and you two can have a discussion. I'll join in if I have something to say. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism @ Glick & Nadler

Our editor-as-political blogger is back, in regular fashion. Cheers, Dogru144 02:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Deborah Glick and Jerrold Nadler, that is. Dogru144 02:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Category

The cat you added back into Nadler no longer exists. It was deleted after a CfD, so there is no point putting it back in, because the category has been zapped. - Crockspot 19:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It was the libertarian edit warrior who restored it. He just keeps mindlessly reverting to his preferred version. He first posted that version before the category was removed from the article, so every time he restores his POV attacks on Nadler, he restores the deleted category. I didn't add it back, I removed it. The good news is that the guy has now been blocked for a week. JamesMLane t c 02:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Trade union

Hi JamesMLane, thanks for giving trade union a bit of a work over. It's nice when someone actually does an end-to-end, as it were - you can notice it in the flow. Cheers. --Bookandcoffee 17:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

reverting

Yes - sorry about that. Moral is, I should read more carefully. I will take a look at the dispute tomorrow - just too tired to absorb it right now. Cheers Tvoz |talk 04:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Giuliani during 9/11 article

What is your opinion of shifting the discussion of Giuliani's handling of September 11? to a new article Rudy Giuliani during the September 11, 2001 attacks  ? We don't redundancy; but neither do we want a erasure of his misdeeds from the main article. Dogru144 18:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't solicit meatpuppets to make edits for you

This appears to me as a solicitation for meatpuppetry by you while in the middle of an edit war with myself and two other users. Just because you were running out of reverts and there were three editors against you doesn't mean that you should resort to such tactics here[1] here[2] here[3] and here[4] I will report any further abuses. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 01:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I looked and saw that those editors had more established accounts. I did not recognize them because they haven't posted on the Giuliani page or haven't posted on the page recently. Please accept my apologies. However, I think you should read over this here[5] and the section on gaming the system here[6]|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 02:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't let partisans bully you! Dogru144 05:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dogru, I won't. I especially won't let them bully me when their attacks are as baseless as this one. I've responded in more detail at Talk:Rudy Giuliani (see [7]). JamesMLane t c 06:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I consider the above comment by Bellowed on James to be a personal attack, and his follow-up "apology" in which he cites two policies Bellowed himself continually violates, to be a continuation of that attack. This is of a piece with his disruptive editing history on the waterboarding and George Soros pages. --Eleemosynary 01:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Further attacks by Bellowed

I wanted to let you know that Bellowed is continuing his attacks on you to other admins[[8], specifically Chaser, in an attempt to justify his actions. I wonder if you would care to comment on Chaser's page, as this is most probably heading for an RfC. --Eleemosynary 02:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Jerrold Nadler, again

Blogging is going on again, via Uno Hu. Dogru144 13:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Youknowwho, that is, Dogru144 14:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed article rewrite project for homeopathy and related articles

Hello, I noticed that you were an active editor in the homeopathy article and I'm leaving you this message asking you to add some input into a proposed article rewrite project I have planned for it and related articles. This means that I will rewrite the article, post a rough draft as a sub page of my username, then when I am done I will gather all major contributors to work on the article from there following specific rules. Anyone who has been in previous disputes concerning this or related articles should be able to come to a compromise if they are reasonable. This project will take several weeks and will probably involve several other articles. Hopefully we can turn homeopathy and related articles into Featured articles or at least Good articles. If you're willing to aid in such a project then please leave a note of support here Talk:Homeopathy#Proposed_article_rewrite_project and answer these simple questions here Talk:Homeopathy#Questions_for_editors. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

George Walker Bush redirect

I did not delete George Walker Bush; looking at the log for that page, neither did any other sysop. If you do see some red link to "George Walker Bush", that means it is not the authentic redirect that you'll get by typing the name into the search box, but rather a lookalike with one or more Cyrillic letters in the name. I would gladly point you to the copycat I deleted, but my machine hanged trying to load my deletion log so I can't. Resurgent insurgent 14:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Aha... found it - George Wаlker Bush. If you edit the page (click to see what I'm getting at), you'll notice that the name of the page in the address bar of your browser (the title= part) is not "George_Walker_Bush", but "George_W%D0%B0lker_Bush". That's the giveaway that it's a lookalike name. The redirect was initially created because a vandal moved the article there. Resurgent insurgent 14:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Please help with Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles

I would appreciate any help you could provide with the new Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles proposal/essay and also over on wiktionary's definition of "conspiracy theory" here. zen master T 23:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Commercialization at Liberty Dollar Page

Have you noticed that at the Liberty Dollar article there is a commercialization entry by our dear, dear friend, Nleobold? (He's promoting this dollar that he has launched, in honor of Ron Paul.) Check out: Paul Who/ how would we get someone to blatant commercialization of wikipedia? Dogru144 12:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point! I'd noticed his high level of activity on that article, but I hadn't looked at it closely enough to see his personal involvement and consequent conflict of interest. The article isn't nearly so biased as some articles I've seen, but it could use some cleanup. I must admit, however, that I don't care enough about the subject to take up the cudgels.

If you want to address the situation, more power to you. I'd suggest that you start by editing the article to make it more neutral. Be sure to explain your edits in the edit summary or on the talk page. Nleobold will undoubtedly revert your "vandalism". If you weary of edit warring with him, you might list the article on WP:RfC. The bright side is that, at least judging from his behavior on Deborah Glick and Jerrold Nadler, he's a somewhat lackadaisical POV warrior, who returns to make his improper edits only a couple of times a week. If reverting him when necessary proves to be too onerous, you can check out Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for more information about how to proceed.

My biggest concern about enthusiasts' articles like this one is if links to them are inappropriately spammed into other articles. If there are no such links, then the article isn't very effective as advertising, because no one will find it except people who already know about the product. Unfortunately, in this case, I can't tell whether there are such improper links. The "What links here" page is filled with articles that include the {{{dollar}} template. A separate listing of Liberty Dollar in, for example, United States dollar#See also would be spam. I can't readily tell if there are any such links, though. JamesMLane t c 08:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Connecticut for Lieberman page

I just added text from an article there, and I really don't know how to use correct footnoting and citation. Could you check it out and correct it? Thanks. Seraphim55 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphim55 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Unfortunately, Skorchin has once again gone into the CFL page and vandalized your work. I have requested that he/his sockpuppets/unknown IP addresses be blocked (see my note on Phil Sandifer's page) and have emailed Wiki administrators about this. I've also noted on the John Orman talk page Skorchin's vandalism dates, and have posted something on the Wikiquette alerts page. Any help you can provide would be much appreciated. Seraphim55 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphim55 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

An edit isn't vandalism if it's a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia. By that standard, I don't think the edit to my work is vandalism. That doesn't mean I agree with it, though. Last night, I wrote a detailed explanation on Talk:Connecticut for Lieberman of why I was reverting. At least, I thought I was reverting, but somehow the revert didn't take hold. I've now done the revert that I explained several hours ago.

As for the John Orman page, I agree with Phil Sandifer that Henshaw's party affiliation isn't relevant to that article. In addition, the "cited" source for the statement about her disaffiliation is documents on file in a town office in Connecticut. That isn't a published source that Wikipedia can use, under the policy of verifiability. Going to the registrar's office and checking their file constitutes original research. See WP:NOR.

On the other hand, I don't agree with your implication in connection with the John Orman article that Wikipedia should assert that Orman is the party chair. That statement simply isn't undisputed, the way it's undisputed that, for example, Lieberman is the Senator. We can state that he describes himself as chair (I think we should avoid "claims") and we can state whatever objective information is available about the Secretary of State's position, but Korchin is certainly entitled to contend the Secretary of State is wrong. There are numerous cases in which an administrative agency with responsibility for a particular subject has made a finding that X is true but the ultimate disposition (in court or otherwise) has been that X is not true.

We block users only as a last resort. An obvious intermediate step here, which I've suggested on Talk:Connecticut for Lieberman, is that User:Skorchin should acknowledge his WP:COI problem and submit proposed edits on the talk page, to be assessed by disinterested editors. I'm not sure what your relationship with the party is, but it would probably help improve the atmosphere if you followed the same course. As a relatively inexperienced user, he probably won't be blocked unless he persists in making problematic edits after the issues and the alternative approach have been pointed out to him. JamesMLane t c 14:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - much thought has gone into your response, and I appreciate it. I don't have time now to fully respond now. BTW, I am Susan Henshaw, CFL Party Secretary (whose registration has been, and continues to be the CFL Party). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphim55 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A great idea - research pertinent to the John Orman or the Connecticut for Lieberman sites will be posted first on either talk page (I'll need help with editing, anyway). Additionally, I would like to post any changes concerning my party affiliation made Orman's site here, should the need ever arise.

Seraphim55 00:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add something to Joseph Lieberman's page. When he moved to Stamford, Ct, he registered as a Democrat. http://www.thestamfordtimes.com/stamford_templates/stamford_story/289850115142016.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphim55 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'll add the information to the Connecticut for Lieberman article, because some people might assume that Lieberman was a member of his eponymous party. I don't have a strong feeling about whether it should be in the Joe Lieberman article, which I generally don't edit. A quick glance at Talk:Joe Lieberman shows several discussions about how to report his party affiliation, so you might want to raise the matter there, noting this development. JamesMLane t c 16:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There was a recommended diary at DailyKos this weekend, written bySprinkles which received many comments (some not so nice) concerning the issue. Thank you for your help. --Seraphim55 23:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Korchin has also added his thoughts to the Wikiquette page concerning the Henshaw issue, in which he accused Henshaw of covering up and lying. --Seraphim55 20:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a correct characterization of what I said. Under Connecticut law, a person who changes party affiliation loses party privileges for three months. Therefore: 1) there was only one person with Connecticut for Lieberman party privileges in January 2007 and 2) Henshaw can't be "secretary" of the party since she reaffilated on June 22. Skorchin 12:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you've both made your positions clear. Now, can we drop this subject? Otherwise, I'll arrange with Kathleen Miranti to settle the dispute with a Korchin-Henshaw Celebrity Deathmatch on the Trumbull Town Common; proceeds from ticket sales go to the Wikimedia Foundation but the Town gets the concession revenues. JamesMLane t c 14:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Would someone please delete the information on Henshaw from the John Orman talk page. Thank you. --Seraphim55 16:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Lane's suggestion seems perfectly reasonable to me! I'm up for it, how about you, Sue?

Regarding removal of material on Susan Henshaw in Orman article: fine by me, as long as the material (which did not originate with me) regarding the Henshaw "nomination" is removed as well. But removing the information from the talk page? Why? Afraid someone might see the truth and publish it? Where's an investigative reporter when you need one!Skorchin 16:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to SKorchin: The statement that Orman recommended Henshaw as Lieberman's replacement is cited to the Connecticut Post article. I can't verify the reference without paying for the article, but I'll assume good faith that the cited article supports the assertion. There is no such reliable source for any assertion about Henshaw's registration, so the latter can't even be considered for inclusion in the article. (Apparently all the investigative reporters in Connecticut think that they have better things to do than to look into your charges on this subject. Frankly, I can't say that I blame them.)

Of course, relevance is a separate issue. That Orman recommended Henshaw is arguably relevant to the article, although IMHO it doesn't add very much; the record of Henshaw's registration, even if properly sourced, would add even less to the article (which is, remember, Orman's bio, not Henshaw's).

Response to Seraphim55: All the stuff about your registration has been removed from John Orman. Do you mean that you want to go further and delete any mention of the subject from Talk:John Orman? Material is permitted on talk pages that wouldn't be allowed in articles. We generally don't delete talk-page comments simply for nonconformance with WP:RS. On the other hand, the talk pages aren't a complete free-fire zone. They are subject to the biography of living persons policy. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material for the policy that might support a removal request. The issue was also referred to here on my talk page and on Talk:Connecticut for Lieberman, so if you wanted to try to get it expunged completely, you'd have to go beyond just Talk:John Orman. I'm not sure how you'd pursue that -- possibly with a posting on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. My recommendation is to drop it. I think that's what I'd do even if I were the one being accused of dishonesty. JamesMLane t c 18:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Seraphim55 22:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

An interesting legal opinion here, FYI. --Seraphim55 20:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a request to add information from this article concerning the Connecticut for Lieberman party on the CFL page:

http://www.greenwichtime.com//ci_8927138?IADID=Search-www.greenwichtime.com-www.greenwichtime.com

--Seraphim55 (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit by SKorchin

I would like Mr. Korchin to reference his latest addition to the CFL page from the quoted article - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Connecticut_for_Lieberman&diff=181308378&oldid=181245170

I sure can't locate it:

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=11D6A78E54C6AA20&p_docnum=1&s_accountid=AC0108010200042305320&s_orderid=NB0108010200021802667&s_dlid=DL0108010200043805340&s_ecproduct=DOC&s_ecprodtype=&s_username=Sprinkles&s_accountid=AC0108010200042305320&s_upgradeable=no --Seraphim55 (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I find it at http://www.greenwichcitizen.com/letters/ci_7829677 (the citation he gave for his edit). I'm not familiar with the "newsbank" source you cite. Perhaps the Korchin LTTE is too recent to be available there? JamesMLane t c 09:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Lane: with due respect, it seems you are not an unbiased referee of this article. My recent attempt to provide a minimum of balance has been edited twice by you.

In particular, I'm concerned about two areas: First, that the comment about what pro-Lamont "blogs" have to say about the party is not balanced, and on its own is clearly not NPOV. If you want to add non-NPOV comments, why not balance it with a referenced comment about the "Lamonties Who Can't Get Over It", or the "Orman Cult of Personality", either of which perfectly describe the two remaining comrades still in the party. Aside from the question of whether the blog references are actual references, perhaps leaving this out altogether would be more in keeping with NPOV.

Second, Dr. Orman's comments of a year ago regarding his goals for Connecticut for Lieberman seem to be superceded by his more recent statments in http://www.fairfieldweekly.com/article.cfm?aid=1540 where he indicates he won't be annoying us much longer. Since therefore this shortly will all be moot, perhaps it is not worth pursuing. Until such time as Orman and Henshaw have actually moved on to other projects, however, his more recent comments are relevant and should supplant the earlier ones.

Connecticut for Lieberman is an active minor party in Connecticut. The annual meeting in August generated a lot of interest in the future direction of the party. I realize that the media like to focus on conflict, but Wikipedia should be a reference, not a platform for political stunts by two people who don't subscribe to the goals of the party. Skorchin (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

69.37.124.148 is doing the dirty work on Connecticut for Lieberman page. Please tell me what needs to be done to stop repeated posting of unreferenced allegations.Skorchin (talk) 10:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

74.73.106.50 has editorialized in the article. I{m not sure what information regarding my edits of the page in March 2007 adds to the article anyway, considering Sue Henshaw is obsessive about it. Skorchin (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about that edit and I've reverted it. As for Sue Henshaw, if a reliable source reports on any activities of hers in conection with the article, we can consider that information for inclusion. More broadly, what's doing with the party these days? I think you described the August 9, 2007 meeting as the "annual meeting", so has another one been held or been scheduled? JamesMLane t c 07:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I thought that you'd be interested in this partisan deletion of an article

POV deletion of articles by User:Bfigura

User:Bfigura has moved to delete The REAL Rudy on Robert Greenwald's viral video immediately upon its posting. The move to delete the article was made with no justification on my talk page or on the talk page of the article.

The {therealrudy.com} web site is politically significant. There are hundreds of google accessible hits as the result of the google search for it. The move to delete the article is probably politically motivated, as it is inconsistent with the survival of other viral videos. Note that there is existing commercially motivated material, such as the Ron Paul Dollar, promoted on the wikipedia page for Liberty Dollar. Yet, this has not been deleted. Dogru144 23:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Examples of other viral videos that have not been deleted

• I Got a Crush... on Obama
• Fox Attacks: Obama

The above is an example of a viral video that has not been deleted. Dogru144 23:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Good edits at The REAL Rudy

Good edits there -you've touched on the pliitalt contest that is key here; and you've inspeired me to strip the commercial spam out of Lib Dollar article. Cheers, Dogru144 03:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning

You have been discovered as a liberal cabal operative. Please remove your obviously slanted edits from this encyclopedia. Long live OGL (Our Glorious Leader). That is all. P.S. I'm drunk. Enjoy being right for the time being, as when the election gets interesting I'm looking forward to all the debates I'm going to wiki-0wn you in. --kizzle 04:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My gosh! A kizzle sighting! Can Bigfoot be far behind?

And Ryan and I are the only ones favored by this visitation. I'm honored.

Meanwhile, whenever you sober up, you need to get your tail back in here and get to work. I don't know what makes you think the election isn't already interesting. There are constant attempts to whitewash the Rudy Giuliani article, with anything negative being removed to make more room for the news that he was cheered at a Mets game. I'm sure there's similar POV-pushing at the other candidates' articles but I haven't paid as much attention to them. Maybe you should go watch the Obama Girl video and get yourself fired up. JamesMLane t c 07:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Independent Democrat

My mistake, I just assumed ID meant InDependent, although now that I think about it, it makes no sense. I didn't notice Sanders, who, I had thought was a Socialist. Maybe even for Bernie Sanders it's too Politically Incorrect to be a Socialist in the United States Senate. Go figure. Dlabtot 04:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Scot

Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland wants to use {{User en-sc}} for Scottish English, and I have suggested they follow ISO code to use {{User en-gb-sct}} instead and allow en-sc instead for Seychellois English, per the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 having "sc" Seychelles and ISO 3166-1:GB#BS-only codes having "gb-sct" as Scotland, just like ISO 3166-1:US having "us-ca" for California and {{User en-us-ca}} for California English. Could you please take a look at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Scottish English and give your thoughts? Thanks! Taric25 16:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

REAL Rudy link at DNC site

I tried to find the link on the DNC site. They are os lame: it is buried if it is there at all. Where did you see the REAL Rudy link? Dogru144 00:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

When I added the statement to the REAL Rudy article, I included the specific link so that no one would delete it as unsourced. Here it is again: http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/09/giuliani_the_re.php I just tried it and confirmed that it still goes to the DNC mention of the videos. Does that link work for you? JamesMLane t c 02:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks again

Nice to know you're still watching out for me in the Wild Wiki Westcountry of Zomerzet! celia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celiakozlowski (talk • contribs) 14:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

CNP

Thought you'd find interesting my cleanup and refs at Council for National Policy page. Dogru144 15:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Frank Fight

I wouldn't doubt that he is the only target. But on a different note I have written to an admin and if are little friend keeps going higher powers will step in Gang14 05:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Did you sick the bot on him? Gang14 05:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No. I've never sicced any bot on anyone, and wouldn't know how to do so if I wanted to. All I did was answer him on the talk page. If he keeps repeating himself without giving any sign of having read either the article or other editors' comments, however, I'm going to switch over to ignoring him. JamesMLane t c 06:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Rudy Crew page under threat of deletion

In a highly partisan move, an editor tagged the biography article on Dr. Rudolph Crew, an education chancellor under NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani, the longest tenure chancellor of education (NYC) in recent memory prior to Joe Klein, for speedy deletion. Crew gets 209,000 hits in a yahoo search. Given that Crew has indeed been quite notable. I consider the moves by the editors to be highly partisan.

Please weigh in with your support. Thanks. Dogru144 02:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Boston sucks

I have nominated Boston sucks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Rocket000 21:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: RfD nomination of Boston sucks

Yeah, there's suppose to be, but the page is fully-protected and I'm not an admin. I figured my nomination would be enough to let an admin know, but I guess I'll have to editprotect request it. Thanks for letting me know. Rocket000 10:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Robert Jackson (musician)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Robert Jackson (musician), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Robert Jackson (musician) seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Robert Jackson (musician), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 22:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

New York City Meetup

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday November 3rd, Brooklyn Museum area Last: 8/12/2007

The agenda for the next meetup includes the formation of a Wikimedia New York City local chapter. Hope to see you there!--Pharos 20:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC) --Pharos 17:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wondering if I could get your opinion

I've started a conversation on word usage on Paul Tsongas discussion page. It's under the section Pyrrhic victory vs Moral victory. Your opinion would be great. Thanks Gang14 00:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks the talk page was kinda dead a third persons view is always appreciated. Gang14 15:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Padraig O'Malley

On 27 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Padraig O'Malley, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 10:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your constructive, useful and thoughtful edits on many political topics.Dogru144 20:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of Controversies of Rudy Giuliani

Greetings. I hope that you agree that the blanking of the article is completely POV. I'd have to research the matter, but I am trying to recall if it was Time WasteR that expunged all of the neg. material from the Main Article bio page, and shuttled it to this page this summer, to begin with.

(An editor has blanked out the Controversies article by redirecting Controversies to the Main Article bio page of Giuliani.)

Regardless, it is ironic that some Rudy partisan got all the negative stuff off the site, and onto the Controversies site. Now that the Controversies page has mushroomed, the Rudy partisans are upset!! I hope that you share my vigilance to protect said article. Dogru144 23:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm about to leave on a vacation so my editing over the next eight days will be very sporadic. I took a quick look at the talk page and saw that Wasted Time R contends that all the information that was in the "Controversies" article is still on Wikipedia. I haven't had the chance to verify that. My personal opinion is that information about controversies shouldn't be ghettoized, but should be included where a reader would naturally look for it.

It's important that we be vigilant to make sure that negative information is readily accessible, given the zeal of the Rudy rooters who'd like to sanitize Wikipedia's coverage. For example, this edit by Wasted Time R removed the Russell Harding information from the "Controversies" article, on the basis that it was "duplicate of coverage already in main article". That's fine, except that, earlier this year, the information was removed from the Rudy Giuliani article, and it was missing for several weeks until I restored it. As long as there are no "losses" of that sort, and all significant information about Giuliani remains available (and findable) even if his publicist wouldn't want it, I think we can just as well do without the "Controversies" article. On the other hand, people sometimes scream "undue weight" (mistakenly, in my view) if an article about a controversial figure doesn't offset criticism with word-for-word equivalent praise. If people throw that around as an excuse to whitewash the main article or its daughter articles, then I would favor keeping a "Controversies" article as being better than losing the information entirely. JamesMLane t c 07:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Article for deletion nomination of Rudy Controversies

Have a great vacation! Totally agree with your comments about white-wash above.

Just wanted to let you know: The Controversies article has been nominated for AfD status. Hope you can get a moment to pipe in. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies of Rudy Giuliani Dogru144 21:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/EJ220

Since you have encountered this user, your input would be helpful here.--Southern Texas 19:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin

Hi. I'd like to nominate you as an admin, as I think you're qualified. Let me know if you're interested. Epbr123 (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Help with Alan Keyes - Wikignat making disruptive edits

James, I wish to appeal for your help on Alan Keyes. Wikignat removed a large section of well-sourced controversial material about Alan Keyes about two months ago. With your help, we convinced him that this was the wrong course of action and that the information belong. He left it alone until now. Again, he removed that same large portion of material, claiming its slander, and ridiculously stating that wikipedia will be sued if this material is left. He had new sources, supposedly "refuting" the controversy and making it false and a lie. I read his sources, came to the conclusion that he was misrepresenting them, then added new material as a compromise to maintain NPOV. However, he came back, removed all of my new material and is now attacking me personally. If you could please come check this out and post your thoughts as an independent reviewer, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. --Jdcaust (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Good luck with future editting! --Jdcaust (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me of his attempt to get the page protected. I'm not sure what gets him so worked up over this. He did make a few constructive edits to the page after the first attempt to get rid of that material. Hopefully, this will end here. I've appreciated your help with this. Its always nice to have an independent editor come in and give his view. --Jdcaust (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, its over for now. Wikignat's reverts resulted in a 24 hour block. I think it helped that you, Dlabtot, and myself all undid one of his reverts. Thankfully, we can all drop this for the rest of the day. Thanks again. --Jdcaust (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Franz Josef Strauß

Might I ask you to take a look at the new discussion going on at Franz Josef Strauß? Yes, it is an ancient topic (the use of ß on en-wiki), but this is one of the most prominent articles in which this issue is of significance. Given your experience, your input would be very much appreciated. Unschool (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You're invited!

...to the next New York City Meetup!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday January 13th, Columbia University area Last: 11/3/2007

In the morning, there are exciting plans for a behind-the-scenes guided tour of the American Museum of Natural History.

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues (see the last meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

CofCC and Huckabee

To be fair, both the 1993 and 1994 incidents should be reported. Huckabee sends videotape in 93. Next year, under criticism, Huckabee repudiates group. RobRedactor (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any support for saying he repudiated them. Next year, Huckabee again agrees to speak before the group; this time, he draws flak, and so changes his mind and un-agrees. That aspect is covered in the article I linked to. I'm not sure that a non-speech is important enough to include, especially in the CofCC article (as opposed to the Huckabee article). JamesMLane t c 02:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Max Blumenthal gets it wrong. Look at the article Duhart, Bill. "Huckabee won't appear with racist.", Philadelphia Tribune, 1994-04-12. where Huckabee does repudiate the group. Excerpt:"Huckabee said he knew nothing of the sponsoring organization or about Lyons. He said that if the Simon Weisenthal Center had contacted him before releasing a letter to the news media that he would have withdrawn from the program. He said the Weisenthal Center has since issued an apology to him.

"I will not have anything to do with a person tied to a supremacist organization," Huckabee said.

When he was contacted about the center's request, he said he had never heard of Lyons.

"But if he is who they say he is and he's going to be on that program, I will not be," Huckabee said. "I will not participate in any program that has racist overtones. I've spent a lifetime fighting racism and anti-Semitism." " Blumenthal is either sloppy or malicious. Alan Dershowitz, no fan of supremacists, wrote on 12-09-1998 in the Harvard Crimson, "To his credit, Lt. Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas canceled his scheduled speech in 1994 for the CCC when he learned who else was speaking and when he realized what the organization stood for." RobRedactor (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This is where having access to paid news archives is really, really useful. Blumenthal could have (and should have) pulled up past articles using Lexis-Nexis or another research service. However Blumenthal is very, very biased and ignores information which disproves his points. RobRedactor (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Robert Byrne

Thanks for your great research on his date of death. I had hoped to find an NYTimes obit, but I didn't search for it effectively enough. Quale (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. Just to enlighten anyone else reading my talk page who may not notice the typo, Robert Byrne is still alive; it's his brother Donald Byrne who died tragically young. JamesMLane t c 22:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ralph Nader

On the subject of "Naders 'very controversial' campaigns," which you've been debating about at the Ralph Nader Talk page, somebody blanked out the "controversy" portion of the intro and replaced it with something else, making your whole discussion moot. I think the previous introduction should be restored and this last edit should be reverted. What do you think? Griot (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't think it should stay blanked. The article should discuss the controversy. My preference, though, is to proceed first via the talk page. The discussion isn't "moot" -- it's an attempt to reach consensus.

If some people go on edit warring meanwhile, so that the article whitewashes the controversy for part of the time over the next few days, it's unfortunate, but I can live with it. I'm not keen to restore the prior language because I don't think it said enough about the subject. At one point, in fact (mid-2006 or so), the coverage was more detailed than what was recently deleted. JamesMLane t c 01:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Superdelegate

Please go back and carfully re-read my points... I never said that Superdelegates should be treated the same thing as Unpledged delegates... in fact... my point is that the Superdelegate page is causing this very confusion.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I took you as meaning that "Superdelegate" should be a redirect to an article titled "Unpledged delegate" or the like. I disagree. A thorough explanation of the superdelegate mechanism will clear up any confusion. JamesMLane t c 04:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Superdelegate

Please do not put that comment back on the talk page. It is not constructive.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

All I did was to move the comment to its proper place and add the signature. In general, I'm against censoring talk pages, even with regard to unconstructive comments. Removal is appropriate only for personal attacks, wild digressions, etc. In the unlikely event that the anon reinserts his/her comment, I think it should stand. JamesMLane t c 19:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

New York, New York IS Manhattan, NOT New York City!

New York, New York specifically identifies the Borough of Manhattan. "New York City" refers to all five boroughs of the City of New York. Please stop arbitrarily reverting my LEGITIMATE edits! This means you, JamesMLane! 24.168.116.169 (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have responded on your talk page to make sure you see it. JamesMLane t c 18:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

How do you know that I am a "new participant", JamesMLane? I have been on Wikipedia for a number of years. I have a user ID, but I prefer to edit anonymously! Why? Because I recently had the unfortunate experience of being the victim of a wikistalker who found my home phone number and started calling me at all hours of the night! I, like you, used to use my real name as my user ID! By the way, I looked you up in the 2007 New York Lawyers Diary and Manual ;-) 24.168.116.169 (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I assumed you were a new participant because you were acting like one. If you've been around for years, then you should know better than to make a unilateral change in something that's been the subject of extensive community discussion.

It's too bad you had a wikistalking problem. You might consider creating a completely new user ID. That's permitted as long as you don't use the two ID's to vote twice in polls, etc. The simple fact is that registered users have more credibility than anonymous IP addresses. JamesMLane t c 14:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

rollback

You could obviously use rollback, so I gave it to you. This is the full spiel. Cheers, NoSeptember 13:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ponzi scheme

Thanks. I wasn't quite bold enough to just yank that section out, although it certainly read like somebody promoting the "state pensions are Ponzi schemes" position to me - it annoyed the heck out of me, but, for that reason, I was loath to just yank it out. Guy Harris (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

New mailing list

There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 21:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Margaret Tyndal Winthrop

I have nominated Margaret Tyndal Winthrop, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Tyndal Winthrop. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. --Michael White^T·C 15:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagreement

Comment moved to Talk:Dean A. Hrbacek.

I have warned the other user, so I will warn you too:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dean A. Hrbacek. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm perfectly aware of the edit war. That's why, some hours before your warning to me, I set out my disagreements in detail at Talk:Dean A. Hrbacek. Because the other user was ignoring the talk page, I also listed the matter at Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements. If you want to make a constructive contribution, what would probably help most now is for someone other than myself to look at the specifics and try to help get this new user to adhere to Wikipedia practices. The article in its current state is in gross violation of those policies. I've refrained from correcting it again because of my concern about edit warring and 3RR. We can of course avoid the edit war if we simply stand aside and let the new user turn Wikipedia into a campaign site. It would be better, though, if other people besides me get involved so that we can fix the article. JamesMLane t c 23:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I left a 3RR warning on the other user's talk page to encourage that person to participate on the article's talk page. I did notice that you had already ceased warring and laid out your arguments on the talk page, so I had misgivings about leaving the 3RR warning for you. However, in the end, I felt that if I had left a 3RR warning for only one person, it wouldn't seem fair to that person. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR

I didn't quite catch the 3RR rule until now but would like to say thanks for your attempt to mediate the dispute on the Hrbacek page. I have a personal history with the subject of this page but I also know that an objective and factual bio is more effective than a blatantly slanted one so despite my built in bias I have tried to be objective in showing both sides of relevent topics.--Watchingthedog (talk) 03:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You are invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 16th, Columbia University area Last: 1/13/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Usernames both blocked

I soft-blocked both of those usernames for now ... but I'm filing a checkuser as well, given the highly suspicious timing of these guys' edits. Some of them have been within 10 minutes of each other--enough time to edit, sign out, sign back in as someone else and edit again. Blueboy96 21:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

JamesMLane, thank you for bringing this to my attention and to the attention of the admins. I appreciate your swift action. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Case filed ... Blueboy96 21:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, well, well ... what do we have here? Both blocked. Blueboy96 21:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought about letting it slide, but considering that Starorion5 had been making highly POV edits for over a month, the fact he set up another account makes it look like he was trying to slip under the radar. Blueboy96 23:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed ... all hardblocked. Blueboy96 13:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to jump the gun, but we'll want to keep an eye on this editor. (S)he could simply be new and agree with Starorion, which would be fine as long as he follows the rules. However, if we begin to see a repeat of Starorion-esque edits, we may want to hit Blueboy96 up for another checksum. →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion

James M Lane,

Thanks for the RfC suggestion on the Dem list of superdelegates page.

I took your advice and posted a request for comments. Hopefully this will cool down and focus the debate on the issue at hand.

If you get the chance to look at it and have any suggestions, please do. I'm new at this.

In any event, I appreciate your suggestion. Regards, --Scantron2 (talk) 03:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Potential rewrite of WP:SELFPUB

Given your involvement at Alan Keyes, and the fact that I brought my edits at that article into the discussion, I thought you might be interested in discussing the potential rewrite of this core policy. Dlabtot (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 5

If that is a call for overturnign you should probably clarify it as such. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

My call for overturning the deletion was in a previous post on that page; I assume you're referring now to my subsequent additional comment. Thanks for the effort you've put into trying to preserve some semblance of encyclopedic coverage of the subject! JamesMLane t c 00:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Takes Manhattan postponed to Friday April 4th

All other details remain the same. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about WP:3O and Talk:Sons of Noah

You seem to be handling the third opinion requests for Talk:Sons of Noah, so I will remove the old requests.

If you think they should remain listed, you are free to revert my removal. You are free to remove this message from your talk page as well :-) — Athaenara ✉ 19:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've accepted your invitation to revert your removal. I'm not "handling" this dispute, but merely offering one opinion. A problem with the article is that there are two editors with strong and conflicting opinions, so getting more third opinions would be very helpful. JamesMLane t c 21:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Vanderbilt Avenue (Manhattan)

Thanks for the sharp eye. Someone accidentally copied down "94" instead of "93" from the context photograph, which was the cause of the mix-up.--Pharos (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The "Hangnail"

Thank you for the heads up on the news on our friend of Deborah G. Cheers Dogru144 (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Excalibur

See WP:ELNO, number 11 – link is a blog and a personal web page. That's why I said it was not appropriate for the article. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that we shouldn't cite a blog as a reference for a statement of fact, but here it's just linking to a photograph that a reader of the article might find interesting. If the blogger had uploaded the photo to Wikicommons and then embedded it in the article, nobody would bat an eyelash. Here, it's not embedded in the article, but merely linked to.

For what it's worth, although the following is clearly original research and not worth mentioning in the article, I was curious and phoned the Excalibur. I didn't know whether the replacement of Merlin with the Dick's image was a temporary promo for the opening of the restaurant, or was a permanent change. The Excalibur operator chuckled and told me it was permanent. JamesMLane t c 04:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Paul Krugman

Hi Paul(?), I think it's obvious that recently Krugman's criticism of Obama and support of Hillary has grown to the level of his criticism of George W. Bush (the evidence is overwhelming, check his column/blog, both the volume and content of his recent posts speak for themselves) Thus I think that it became a part of his legacy (I'm sure that he does it consciously) and should be in the first section of the article, as a "warning sign";) Though he may still be a liberal (also I could argue against it - on the same basis - whether liberalism stops at supporting gun-loving, wanna-obliterate-Iran, somewhat (implicitly)racist candidates, but I can live with it) I'm new to Wikipedia and don't really master the English language so your editing is always welcomed, I just wanted to share my opinion before you "undo" my recent contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.66.247.120 (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Second Indochina War or "Vietnam"

James, Thanks for your input and note re. redirects. The term "Vietnam War", or "Vietnam" is a distinctly provincial U.S. perspective of that era of the Second Indochina War and the Cold War. The French, and most of Europe are more familiar with the First and Second wars in "Indochina". Some Vietnamese refer to the later as the "American War". Part of the problem people have in understanding the history of that war is that many Americans persist in using the U.S.A.-centric term that's primarily based upon years of daily televised news coverage that norrowly focused on U.S. participation in the "conflict" in Viet Nam. Thanks again. Keep up the great work! Best regards, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've responded at Talk:Vietnam War, where this discussion belongs. JamesMLane t c 16:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday June 1st, Columbia University area Last: 3/16/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD

I'd be interested in your take on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Nelson, I made reference to a previous AfD/DRV argument I think you made, and I just want to make sure I was quoting you correctly. MrPrada (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Know any law book about interlocutory appeals?

Could you please refer me to a law book which confirms what you were saying in the interlocutory article:

"In many legal systems, interlocutory orders are not appealable, except in a few extraordinary cases. When the case is concluded, any aspect of an interlocutory order that has not become moot may be challenged in an appeal from the final judgment."

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.248.173 (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In the federal courts in the United States, the general statement of the "final judgment" rule, which bars interlocutory appeals, is found in 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which reads in part: "The courts of appeals (other than the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States . . . ." Other provisions of the law allow interlocutory appeals in limited circumstances.

If you're looking for a general statement of the law in the United States, not based on any particular court system (state or federal), one source is Corpus Juris Secundum, a legal encyclopedia. The text in CJS is: "Except where a statute, rule, or constitutional provison provides otherwise, an appeal lies only from a final judgment or order." I've edited the Interlocutory article to add a citation to this passage. JamesMLane t c 23:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I might not have expressed myself clearly enough because your answer does not really respond to my question.

I repeat once again the part of your quote which interests me the most, namely: "when the case is concluded, any aspect of an interlocutory order that has not become moot may be challenged in an appeal from the final judgment."

Once again what you wrote does not seem to support this kind of statement. So, please clarify on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.237.110 (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't understand you. I cited only the first part because the second seemed to me to be obvious. If you can't take an immediate appeal from a particular interlocutory decision, then it must be appealable at the end of the case, otherwise you could never get judicial review of that decision. Nevertheless, I suppose the principle of the availability of judicial review isn't self-evident, so it should be cited. The relevant passage in CJS reads: "Any right of appeal from an interlocutory ruling terminates with the entry of final judgment in the action, whereupon the issues raised in the interlocutory ruling are considered on appeal from the final order." I've edited the Interlocutory article to add a citation to this passage. JamesMLane t c 00:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for clarification. I find the main problem with law is that not always common sense are what one would consider elementary fairness is what is observed in the legal system. For example, there is principal that appeal lies from the order and not from reasons for the order. Why would it be so? Isn't it obvious that the order, even in my favour, can be made in such a way that though it looks like I won, while in fact, I lost. And I cannot appeal it because it looks like I won (it comes from the case of a wife who was declared unfaithful in the judgment which she won against her husband and which she could not appeal). Does this make sense?

Or yet another example - res judicata. Suppose a judgment is entered that snow is black, then Court of Appeal supports that snow is black, then somebody proves scientifically that snow is in fact white and one cannot change the judgment because it became res judicata. Does this make sense? Are you aware of any exceptions in civil law which allows to challenge res judicata? Where can I read about it?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.235.198 (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Res judicata applies only to holdings that were necessary to the decision. If the wife was declared unfaithful, but won, then you're right that she could not appeal. Because she couldn't appeal, though, it wouldn't be res judicata. If someone stated in another context that she was unfaithful, she could sue for defamation, and wouldn't be precluded from establishing the falsity of the accusation.

As to changes based on subsequent evidence, Rule 60(b)(2) in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to seek relief from judgment based on newly discovered evidence. If the scientific report on snow came out within a year after the initial decision, this rule would be available. (I think that most states in the U.S. have similar rules.) Beyond that, courts can always overrule themselves on matters of general import (such as what color snow is). For example, compare Plessy v. Ferguson ("We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority") with Brown v. Board of Education ("separate educational facilities are inherently unequal"). The latter decision was based in part on scientific knowledge that had been developed since Plessy was decided. The scholarly authorities are summarized in the decision's famous footnote 11. JamesMLane t c 21:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks

You're right - I did not see that the McCain disability stuff was being deleted when I made that change - thanks for catching it. Tvoz/talk 05:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, JamesMLane. I've responded at my talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

John McCain article

Please discuss the edits you have been adding in the talk page for Political positions of John McCain. Trilemma (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I pointed out in my edit summary that the passage you wanted to add (the pro-McCain spin about what a "maverick" he is) was unsupported by the cited source. You restored the passage without addressing that point. I didn't respond on Talk:Political positions of John McCain because there was nothing to respond to; my prior edit summary was still valid as to your former source and applied equally to the new one you added. I've now commented additionally on the talk page. JamesMLane t c 23:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I read your edit summary; I disagreed with it. That's why I asked you to explain it on the talk page ;) Trilemma (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What I find odd is that you still haven't cited any language in either of your linked sources that actually supports the assertion you added. JamesMLane t c 00:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The language is very clear, particularly in the second article. But since you're persisting, I've found another: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10637.html. Trilemma (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The point I made in my ES about the first article you cited applied also to the second and applies to this one as well: "rm claim unsupported by articles, which mention only one environmental issue (global warming)". The Politico article talks about the capital gains tax and McCain's promise to appoint more conservative judges. Would you mind pointing me to the specific language in that article that shows him breaking with Bush on an environmental issue other than global warming? JamesMLane t c 18:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Political positions of John McCain

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Political positions of John McCain appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, although as it happens I've already heard of the NPOV policy. The edit I made is both neutral and factually correct. I'll elaborate in greater detail at Talk:Political positions of John McCain, which is where you should have taken the trouble to explain whatever NPOV problem you saw with my edit. JamesMLane t c 21:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edit whitewashes the important fact that he wants to effectively repeal the federal minimum wage. Just because McCain holds a fringe position doesn't mean that it should be left out of the article. JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edit asserts falsely that he wants to repeal it. My edit makes clear what you now state, that he wants to effectively repeal it. Our readers aren't idiots. JamesMLane t c 23:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Apology

It appears I lumped you in a with a troll at the Fox News talk page, and had some apparently unnecessary harsh words for you specifically. After doing some research, at the behest of Gamaliel. I see my initial reaction to you was in error. Therefore, I apologize. I stand by my words, but I do not believe you are the proper recipient of them, so once again I'll say that I'm sorry for directing them towards you. Perhaps our paths may cross at sometime in the near future, and we can collaborate peaceably. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted, with thanks. I've been off-wiki for the holiday weekend or I would have responded to your gracious comment earlier. JamesMLane t c 19:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

re Rfc

Thanks for the heads up on the template error. Hopefully it's corrected now. I'm not sure what you find to be misleading about my representation. The specific 2004 survey appears to be in regards to proposed renegotiations of NAFTA and other trade agreements. We can provide any additional McCain philosophies regarding future trade agreements without the usage of those types of surveys. Trilemma (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You write, "The specific 2004 survey appears to be in regards to proposed renegotiations of NAFTA and other trade agreements." That interpretation explains (as you had not previously done) why you saw his opposition to renegotiation as subsuming his opposition to labor and environmental protections. The hole in your argument is that your interpretation is purely your spin on it. The cited source doesn't contain the word "renegotiation" or any of its variants. As I've shown you, in the real world the question of labor and environmental protection is actually raised in the context of whether to grant initial approval to a trade agreement. One POV (a fairly widespread one) is that the proposed agreement should be assessed purely on economic grounds. An opposing POV (also widespread) is that labor and environmental impacts should be taken into account. McCain has aligned himself with the former camp.

You also write, "We can provide any additional McCain philosophies regarding future trade agreements without the usage of those types of surveys." Your objection to surveys is quite selective, given that other passages in the article rely on them. Nevertheless, I'm not wedded to this source. If you find some source that you regard as more reliable, and it conveys McCain's position on this specific point, we could certainly consider citing that in addition to or instead of McCain's response to the survey question. JamesMLane t c 07:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to revise primary usage guidelines, would affect Worcester

Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Propose_change_in_guidelines_for_primary_usage: I've proposed a change in general guidelines on primary usage that would result in a move for Worcester.--Loodog (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Trilemma's recent edit

What do you think of this edit by Trilemma? I don't think he's given nearly enough justification for the amount of information he's deleted. I started a section on the talk page. AzureFury (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of NLP Modeling

An editor has nominated NLP Modeling, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NLP Modeling and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.

Second Annual WikiNYC Picnic

Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come!
You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC

Dear JamesMLane, If you have time and are willing to share your point of view. Can you give your comment arguments about the current discussion in the bates method article. Paragraph : The American acadamy of opthalmology link listed in the external link section ? appreciate your comment, Seeyou (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inviting your comment

Here (and also, if possible, here?)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 05:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding SS fraud in Texas

James, Thanks for the feedback. I agree: "My thought is that we should move your material to a daughter article on "Janitorgate" (or whatever) and leave behind only a couple sentences in the main article." But, I am a newbie and not sure how to doe this. Can you do it, or else tell me how to do it? And, in fact, I am not sure that I am responding to your comment in the proper way (by posting to your discussion page). Nicholas007 (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC

Dear JamesMLane ,If you have time and are willing to share your point of view. Can you give your comment arguments about the current discussion in the bates method article. Paragraph : Elwin Marg was an optometrist  ! appreciate your comment, Discussion is about whether or not the profession of Elwin Marg should be mentioned in the external link section. Seeyou (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

YouTube as RS?

We've moved the discussion here, if you want to add your two cents. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yo

Yay election season. I'll be checking up on Palin's page, you coming? --kizzle (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah James, I miss your ability to wiki-p0wn, i.e. Palin. --kizzle (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad you have an interest in lead sections

Perhaps you'd like to look at the lead section for Controversy over an Obama–Ayers connection:

The controversy over an Obama–Ayers connection arose during the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign of the significance and details of Presidential candidate Barack Obama's contacts with his constituent Bill Ayers, a former leader of the Weather Underground Organization who later became a professor of national reputation at the University of Illinois at Chicago and a "very respected and prominent" member of local society." Obama served on two nonprofit boards with Ayers and lived near him, and both Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn had hosted a small campaign meeting for Obama at their home. The matter was covered by news organizations and brought up by the campaign of competing candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton in February 2008, revisited during a debate between Clinton and Obama in April 2008, then subsequently picked up by Republican presidential candidate John McCain as an issue in the general election campaign. Obama condemned Ayers' past through a spokesman, and indicated he does not have a close association with Ayers.

There's a discussion about the lead at Talk:Controversy over an Obama–Ayers connection#Establishing proper context in the lead -- Obama's response, defense of Ayers. Noroton (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

Regarding the Kopp information, I'm fine with putting it at the end of the section, because the section has gotten bigger. But may I suggest an alternative: deleting it from the main article. The Monegan issue really is now far more about the investigation, Palin's (lawyer's) proposal that the legislature drop the investigation, and whether or not the legislature will resort to a subpoena to try to force her to provide information. The Kopp stuff was (proportionately) important when it was first added, but I don't think it is any longer, as the situation has evolved. Deleting it, of course, will deal with any confusion. And it still will be in the daughter article, with all the details. (I note that it's not - or wasn't, last I looked - in the lead section of the daughter article, indicating relatively less importance.)

(And re the code, I don't remember where I copied it from, but it can be helpful, as you note.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Weathermen, Ayers, Dohrm, Obama, and "terrorism"

Please note that I have created an RfC to discuss the matter of whether, how, and where we should use and cover the designation "terrorist" describe the Weathermen and their former leaders. It is located here: Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. The intent is to decide as a content matter (and not as a behavioral issue regarding the editors involved) how to deal with this question. I am notifying you because you appear to have participated in or commented about this issue before. Feel free to participate. Thank you. Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)