User talk:JamesMLane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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

Contents

[edit] Ted Kennedy anons

The arbitration against the Kennedy anonymous editors is in voting. You might want to look and comment. The proposed decision would ban 24.147.97.230 and sockpuppets Labgal and Fishingguy99 for three months. Most of the one-time user accounts appeared to be meatpuppets. However, the timing of the use of Labgal and Fishingguy99 in a 3RR war was too perfect for meatpuppets. I am satisfied with the proposed ruling. Please look at it and see if you are satisfied. Robert McClenon 15:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] semi-protection

Finally, some attention is being paid. Check here. --kizzle 21:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shelley Powers

I hardly ever close deletion debates, so I'm not really familiar with the instruction creep surrounding the procedure. I managed to find a model to copy it from and it's on the talk page now. --Michael Snow 16:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Loophole

You are receiving this because you participated in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule#The "Next Day" Loophole. This discussion has not had any activity in approximately a month and so most of its participants have probably stopped actively checking it; thus, I am informing all participants in that discussion of a recent addition I have made. Thank you. Kurt Weber 01:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal pending at 9/11 conspiracy theories

I have officially proposed to split the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, with the two most in depth areas being moved to separate articles at Allegations of Jewish or Israeli complicity in 9/11 and Allegations of U.S. government complicity in 9/11. I feel this will help alleviate the problem of the main article being too large and allow these two distinct concepts to be discussed in depth separately. Further division may be in order in the future, but I feel this is an important first step. Please check out the discussion at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Proposal_to_split_this_article. Thank you. Blackcats 04:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I mentioned you

Haven't seen you around much. I was wondering what your take is on the latest discussion thread here: Talk:List of dictators. The article survived AFD and has been improved a great deal but is still a hotbed of argument.--MONGO 06:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in on my talk page...your input is always respected by me.--MONGO 08:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Since you missed the AFD for List of Dictators and are a Red Sox fan...Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yankees Suck--MONGO 09:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bremer as proconsul

This is just a note of appreciation for your (successful) defense of my mention of the fact that Paul Bremer was often called a proconsul! While I am certainly no admirer of Bremer, mentioning this was certainly not 'vandalism' in any sense. In fact, the article on proconsul already alludes to Bremer. Mark K. Jensen 05:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] happy holidays

just wanted to further the war on christmas and also say what's up and to wish you and your family happy holidays. and by the way, you're the last in the liberal cabal without a picture up. --kizzle 02:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quick question...

On the White Rose website AfD, you wrote:

Keep. This website isn't a blog. It's an archival resource that some authors or speakers might well use. Therefore, some readers or listeners might want to know more about the site. An article about it is useful enough to keep. JamesMLane 10:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think that your reasoning holds? For example, if I start a website with archival copies of a few radio shows, that automatically warrants an encyclopedia article on my website? I think simply listing it as an external link on the articles of the shows I archive might work, but simply because I have a website with archives does not make it, or me, notable. Would you agree? I don't intend for you to change your vote, I just think your reasoning is a little odd. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Nation

Hey there. I was wondering if you think it is a wise idea to be bold and make the changes I outlined over at Talk:The Nation. I agree with you completely that the current setup (as a disambiguation page) is confusing. I just thought I'd ask your opinion first as to divert further overreactions. Thanks. --Howrealisreal 23:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Conspiracy theory" title neutrality proposal 2.0 voting has begun

See here and Wikipedia:Title Neutrality. zen master T 20:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted notice

Usually I don't do things like that, but in this case the user was vote spamming for a highly inappropriate poll to make article names confirm to his POV (hence its deletion) despite being told not to, being asked to use existing procedures for page moves, and this very same proposal having been soundly defeated earlier. User is now blocked for rules lawyering and WP:POINT, per his ArbCom case. Radiant_>|< 10:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy theory titles discussion area

Hello James, just letting you know, for at least the time being, the new "conspiracy theory" appropriateness in titles discussion area can be found at Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory titles. zen master T 18:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Nation

I strongly recommend that you not do this. The majority of those who have commented oppose the move made by Jtdirl, and any changes you make now will just have to be changed back later. Let's try to reach a resolution on the talk page instead of moving the article back and forth and changing links. JamesMLane 19:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe discussion on the talk page has broken down. These changes will not have to be changed back later - as it stands, the article is at The Nation (U.S. periodical) and there is no disadvantage from having links pointing there. On the other hand it is dealing with the problem that may arise in advance. The non-global perspective of various American Wikipedians is hampering this effort. Stifle 20:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
If you believe that further discussion will accomplish nothing, then the majority position should prevail. Most of those who've commented believe that The Nation should be the article on the U.S. magazine. Please don't assume that your preferred setup will be implemented just because you've concluded that people who disagree with you are Americans acting on a "non-global perspective". JamesMLane 20:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Specifically, four people have suggested that The Nation should be the article, and three that it should not. Hardly a clear consensus. If we can't come up with something I will probably take this to WP:RFM. Stifle 20:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that there is no clear consensus in suppport of Jtdirl's move. Under those circumstances, the article should remain where it was for more than two years without objection. Would you agree with my suggestion on the talk page that the article be restored to its prior position, after which you or any of those who agree with you would propose a change at Wikipedia:Requested moves? I'm not sure whether your reference to WP:RFM means that you want mediation or if you simply thought that was the shortcut to Wikipedia:Requested moves. JamesMLane 20:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I was asserting that there was no clear consensus in support of The Nation redirecting to the US publication page, i.e. that it should be a dab page. My preferences, in order, are:
  1. The Nation redirects to The Nation (disambiguation)
  2. The current situation
  3. The Nation hosts the US periodical page and links to the disambig page.
The RFC has not brought many new voices and I don't know if we can resolve this as is. Mediation was the suggestion I was making; I don't know if we can meet halfway here. Stifle 20:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I suggested Wikipedia:Requested moves because it's more precisely tailored to this sort of issue. It would probably be more efficient than mediation. The RfC brought in at least a few new voices, and a listing on Wikipedia:Requested moves might bring in more. I also agree with you that there may not be any halfway point that would be a logical outcome of a mediation. JamesMLane 20:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey James, User:Jtdirl has moved the U.S. periodical page from The Nation namespace, and redirected it to the disambiguation page. I reverted it back, and then he reverted it back to his way. I just wanted to give you the heads-up, and say that as a sign of good faith I'm going do nothing for the moment to avoid an edit war. --Howrealisreal 23:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Famous drinkers

I came across the category on the Dorothy Parker page, and when it was red I decided that the category should be categorised. If it was a CFD then I would assume the category would have been removed from that page, but it wasn't. Apologies. Rogerthat Talk 07:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Putting on the Ritz

Ooops! I cut and pasted the image name in and then forgot to remove it after I'd constructed the image line. Thanks for that! --Surgeonsmate 10:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] scandal/controversy

i agree with the point you made over at killian. really, the same should apply to category:Clinton Administration scandals, (as well as the various "gate" articles in there). i'm inclined to post that scandal category to cfd for renaming. would you agree with that? if so, i think that such a posting would benefit tremendously by your commentary, or even by your nomination; i am considerably less eloquent. Derex 20:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC opened for Mr j galt

An RfC has been opened here against User:Mr j galt (talk • contribs). If you are familar with his editing and would like to add your input, please feel free to do so, whatever your POV. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nation disambiguation

I recommend that you not adjust any links to The Nation for the time being. There is disagreement about how the articles should be set up. Most editors who've commented on the matter think that The Nation should be the U.S. periodical, but one editor keeps unilaterally changing it to a redirect to the dab page. We're probably heading toward a listing on Wikipedia:Requested moves. In the meantime, unless you feel confident about predicting the ultimate resolution, any work you do may have to be undone. Sorry for the inconvenience. JamesMLane t c 10:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Actually, for what it's worth, I don't think that the disambiguation I was doing would get entangled in this debate. Assuming, after the resolution of the debate, that the pages The Nation (U.S. periodical), etc. still exist, then everything I did will still work. (And I can't imagine that, however the debate is resolved, that the link The Nation (U.S. periodical) won't exist.) In fact, putting more information into the links in the articles kind of negates the need for any debate such as the one you are having (which is the whole point of the disambig effort in the first place).
Well, in any case, I'll stay away from the rest of the pages, since I see now that you guys have this (heated?) debate going. Are you going to put this issue up RfC? --Deville (Talk) 16:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't want to get further entangled in this one myself. Yes, I think it makes the most sense for The Nation to refer to the U.S. periodical rather than be a disambiguation page. But is this really worth fighting over? As long as starting from The Nation will easily get you there... - Jmabel | Talk 07:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Communication

I don't use AIM much, but I dusted off my copy and have sent you an invitation to chat. Also an email. I'll be leaving shortly but will be back at a computer later this evening. Cheers, -Will Beback 00:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Nation

The issue of what article should be at this title has been placed on Wikipedia:Requested moves. You can offer your vote and comment here: Talk:The Nation#Article title. JamesMLane t c 06:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Stifle 11:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 :-) And I got requested moves fixed just before you started using it. Jolly good :-) Kim Bruning 21:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] delivery notification

I've replied to your message, on my talk page.

Thanks! Adrian Lamo ·· 10:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chilean coup of 1973

I'd be interested in your opinion at Talk:Chilean coup of 1973#Differentiating the deposement from the coup. - Jmabel | Talk 06:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruth Riley Format Heading

Hi I was just trying to stick to a format that was most commonly used before I started making any modification to wikipedia. In fact I carefully checked the large majority of the NBA and WNBA players before setting a format. For the time being I am shooting for quantity and consistency among all the players.

If I was to split their birth place information into a personal bio of some sort, I am not sure I would have that much more to add besides the location alone. Your Charles Darwin example would be good for someone as historic as Darwin himself. Most of the players who started their careers are so young that research itself is already difficult. If you look at some of my contribution areas many of the players have just enough info to get a page going.

Starze 18:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note from Chinrest

Chinrest 03:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)James, I regret that I've probably broken a raft of rules right here at the beginning without even trying. Didn't have any inkling of the complexity that abides here. As I began to look around a few hairs went up on the back of my neck and once I found where "square one" was, I've started the somewhat confusing, but no doubt useful process of following the introductory steps laid out in the newbies area. Hope I can get up to speed and didn't step on too many sacred plots in the mean time Chinrest 03:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States Bill of Rights

Hi, I'm soliciting Wikipedia:Peer review#United States Bill of Rights comments from people who contributed to the FA on the 1st Amendment, since there doesn't seem to be any response at PR. Many thanks, Kaisershatner 21:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giuliani & Prostate Cancer

I agree with you. The link wasn't relevant. patsw 18:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tawkerbot

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed by an automated bot. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. If you feel you have received this notice in error, please contact the bot owner // Tawkerbot2 09:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot has its false positives, but generally does a good job. You got caught in one of those narrow areas where false positives are made (namely, a non-admin removing more than 90% of an article's content - it won't revert an admin, but there are lots of good contributors who are not admins). Please don't take the automated warning personally, we all know you are doing good work. Cheers, NoSeptember talk 09:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

  • They are tweaking that bot all the time, and apologizing for false positives all the time too (read the bot's talk page to see just how often). Even Jimbo has been reverted by the bot (before the "don't revert admins" clause mentioned above was added) and he blocked the bot for a few minutes :-). You should give your suggestion to Tawker, I have nothing to do with programming bots. NoSeptember talk 10:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I added you to the whitelist, it won't touch you again (I think) - I'll take a look at the possibility of checking edit summaries, at present its not done but I'll have a look, though I don't know if it would be better to copyvio tag everything (at the bottom maybe) and have someone else remove the copyvio tag. Anyways, thanks for the note, I hope the bot didn't cause too much trouble :) -- Tawker 00:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Quotation Marks

Ah, thank you James. However, this leaves me slightly confused as this is news to me. I was under the impression American English was used for American-related topics and British for British. Does that only apply for spelling or is this a new rule? --3345345335534 13:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] temper

as BD777 said, I am a little "excitable". will just break for a bit more, i reckon. felt terrible about that girl having her own article for the rest of her life over that. not that it shouldn't have a mention somewhere, but a whole article? wow, there needs to be some level of sensitivity to the human element in all this. girl was basically an intern who did a bone-headed thing. and as you said, Rex is blissfully gone; we shan't see his like again. Derex

Post from indefinitely-banned user removed, per Jimbo's instructions.[1] AnnH ♫ 20:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Conscription

My article had addressed the constitutionality of consciption, but I guess that has been brought up probably by others in the links already there, so I guess the deletion is fine. Allixpeeke 03:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] edit

Thanks for helping out with editing Ken Bennett. It could still use some work, preferably by some people more familiar with Arizona politics (I'm also in NYC), but it's a bit closer to a polished article now. NTK 02:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E mail

I sent you an email.--MONGO 08:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

MONGO is much more informed than me, so I'll let you two take care of this. I was more concerned about some other things. --HappyCamper 10:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John W. Collins

Regarding your revert of the possessive form on the John W. Collins page, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Usage link you cited in your revision comment says:

Possessives of singular nouns ending in s may be formed with or without an additional s. Either form is generally acceptable within Wikipedia. However, if either form is much more common for a particular word or phrase, follow that form, such as with "Achilles' heel" and "Jesus' tears".

So yes, either is acceptable, but I believe the form without the extra "s" (similar to the two examples given) is the more commonly accepted way of writing it, and as such, that form should be used in the article. Dsreyn 02:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your advice to a new user

I never imagined that submitting an entry would unleash such pettiness and appreciate the time you took to comment.

Thank you Zoraida 02:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruth Riley

I have responded to your comment regarding my Ruth Riley edit on my talk page. Thanks for the comment. Lbbzman 14:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ralph Nader

Thank you for taking wolfstar to task at the Ralph Nader article for her indiscriminate use of the POV and NOR tags. wolfstar made a real mess of the Democratic Party (United States) article for about two weeks running. See the last archived Talk page at that article to see what I mean. I hope you succeeded in cutting her off at the pass with your thoughtful admonishment. Griot 19:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Senator Conrad Burns

If you have some free wiki time, perhaps you could stop by and provide your opinion regarding what seems to me like an effort to sanitize this article by removing information about the Senator's propensity towards controversial statements. Gamaliel 18:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What pages are you working on so I can try to win an argument with you? --kizzle 03:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC) (1st Liutenant, Liberal Cabal)


[edit] Withdrawal of participation

Could you please perhaps withdraw my "account" from the active status on Wikipedia? I am afraid that I am unable to participate with the editors on this site.

If you are not able to, could you please perhaps forward this to another person who can perform this action?

With great appreciation, I remain,

--SteveatWork 18:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request to reopen Rex071404 (talk • contribs) RfAr #4

In light of recent sockpuppeting by Rex071404 (talk • contribs) a/k/a/ Merecat (talk • contribs) to violate the permanent ban on his editing of John Kerry, I've requested the fourth and most recent 'Rex' RfAr be reopened and if appropriate, the remedies re-defined and re-applied. As a prior petitioner of that RfAr, I'm notifying you here. Thank you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sierra Club of Canada

I posted a reply at Talk:Sierra Club of Canada. Ardenn 22:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving.

[edit] thought you might like this

User_talk:Kizzle#Sock --kizzle 05:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democrat Party article

Hello James. Wikipedia is considering deleting the Democrat Party (United States) article. I hope you will weigh in on the topic here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Democrat_Party_(United_States) I noticed you commented on the article earlier. I believe the article should be deleted, as it is a perjorative term not worthy of being in an encyclopedia. Griot 23:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Rivers Pitt AfD

I know you've made some edits on this article as well, so I thought you might want to weigh in on the AfD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Rivers_Pitt%28Second_Nomination%29) On the talk page and the AfD entry, I attempted to rebut all of the reasons for it being brought up for AfD (for the second time). Maximusveritas 00:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is stopping anyone from suggesting a Speedy Keep. I have been reprimanded in the past for deleting vandalous AfD tags on other articles it obviously didn't belong on--RWR8189 06:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A request

I have an article request for you - Assignment wheel (e.g, the process by which judges are randomly selected) Raul654 07:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heh. My apologies.

Sorry for my comment on kizzle's talk page... I wasn't aware you two were friends. I assumed, which isn't a good idea. No hard feelings, I hope? Kasreyn 07:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Me

White, female, middle-aged, attorney. Hostile to the right wing and the parapsychology/quackery mindset. MollyBloom 22:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dkosopedia

Have you seen it:? I found it when trying to sort out the wingnut additions in Wiki on "Tort Reform", The Brookings Institution, Asbestos and the Law (now quite different), Manhattan Institute, etc. You might find Dkosopedia refreshing after reading the profligating by the wingnuts.MollyBloom 04:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the reference on the article I took over there - it is needed. Also, to help clarify, I am Leo54 there. MollyBloom 17:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WOT the fuck

Check this out please :) --kizzle 23:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the backup, holmes. it's all good, i held my own. --kizzle 04:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

glad you liked that one. :) --kizzle 23:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norm Coleman

Hi, I am sending this message to serious contributors who may be interested in articles related to U.S. politics. I believe I am receiving an unreasonable response-- and at times insulting and rude-- from the editors of this article, who refuse to remove a section that may offer some interesting trivia for Wikipeidia users, but is irrelevant to people interested in reading an encyclopedia article on a member of U.S. Senate. If you have time, please take a look at the article. 172 | Talk 03:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ballistic missile comment

Hi James. On 1 Mar 2005 you commented on the definition of a Ballistic missile. I came across it earlier this week and agreed with you. I subsequently made some changes. Does this clear up the meaning? Or could it use some more info. If so on what in particular. Regards Daleh 08:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ann Coulter poll

Hi, you have participated in Ann Coulter discussions in the past, please see here to cast your thoughts about whether Ann Coulter should be described as a "civil rights advocate" in the intro. --kizzle 07:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC at Democratic Underground

I thought you might want to lend your wisdom to the RFC currently underway. BenBurch 04:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wtf

you better be editing political articles come aug-oct or else. where the f have you been? --kizzle 05:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

CT primary = awesome. --kizzle 04:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like your input both here and on the general page as to attempt to accurately characterize the allegations of hacking Lieberman's website. More specifically, whether blogs such as DailyKos (Kos posts), and even blogs by George Stephanopolous hosted on ABCNews.com do not meet WP:RS. Thank you, all hail Our Glorious Leader. --kizzle 22:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quentinmatsys (talk • contribs) moving pages

Hi - I'm contacting you because you reverted the name change at Ken Blackwell by a user who appeared not to understand Wikipedia naming policy. He made a similar change at Plame affair; capitalizing "Affair" with the only explanation being that "it should be capitalized." Obviously, Wikipedia naming policy is that it should not. I put a note on the page requesting an admin's help moving it back, and I posted a note to Quentinmatsys's talk page explaining what was wrong with his move and why it was better to post to talk before making a major page move. He didn't respiond and he deleted my comment, marking the edit as minor. This got me suspicious, so I peeked at his edit history and found a number of similarly strange edits -- more capitalization of things that aren't capitalized as per Wiki naming policy, a series of significant substantive changes all marked as "minor," (see also these edits and these, also all marked "minor"), other suspicious page moves without explanation. I don't know if he's trolling or just confused, but Plame Affair needs to be moved back by an admin, and someone should talk to him about marking edits "minor." Thanks.--csloat 02:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mitt Romney

James,

I saw that you have edited this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney

This page is the #2 site that comes up when doing a "Mitt Romney" google. In my opinion, it is better than any other Mitt Romney article. However, it is not very comprehensive. I'm trying to make something more like a Mitt Romney book, instead of a Mitt Romney Article. The website is here:

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/

I examine many additional topics, but I want more perspectives than just my own. I would like you to help contribute, if you would like. Just e-mail me at: mike.laub@gmail.com, and I will give you the password!

Until we get more people working on it, I would like to keep the password a secret. I do not have enough time to correct graffiti.

[edit] John Kerry

It looks like someone slipped in some Swift Boat crap when we weren't looking. You might want to have a look at the Vietnam section of the Kerry article. Gamaliel 21:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lauren Weiner

I saw your ES comment that you intend to create an article on her because she "clearly qualifies". Before you invest a lot of your time drafting such a thing, I wanted to alert you that there was an article on her a while back. There was dispute about whether she was notable enough for a separate article. There was an AfD process (or that might've back when it was still called "VfD"), and the result was that the article was deleted. A new article on her would be subject to speedy deletion as the re-creation of deleted material. JamesMLane t c 02:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. However, she is a Democrat crook and if she was a Republican crook then there would be an article about her. Yes, I read your page. I realize that you are "Hostile to the right-wing". Have a good day.--Getaway 12:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, we have articles on notable miscreants of both parties. If you contend that we have an article on some Republican who's as low-level as Weiner, let me know and I'll join you in voting to delete it. JamesMLane t c 18:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Lane: You are not as "hostile" as you claim. Thanks for the offer. When I stumble on one (and I know they are out there), I will send you a message. Have a good day.--Getaway 19:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Lori Klausutis. Tbeatty 16:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
You should read what I actually wrote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). My rationale for keeping the article was that to put all the information into the Joe Scarborough article would be clutter in the latter. By contrast, the Weiner thing was so minor that Michael S. Steele#DSCC credit report incident seems to cover it adequately. AFAIK, none of the proponents of deleting the Klausutis article have expressly stated whether they would agree to moving all its information to the Scarborough article. My suspicion is that many of them would prefer to suppress the information. I know of no information about the Weiner incident that's being suppressed. JamesMLane t c 17:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no information being suppressed in any of them. There just isn't every slaient, scurrilous detail and aspersion. There is plenty of stuff on Wiener that could have been written about and there is plenty on hte internet. It's just not right to do it here. The same goes for Klausutis.--Tbeatty 18:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
And the Wiener incident was actually a crime. No crime or anything untoward happened with Klausutis. In that sense, it is much less notable. Tbeatty 18:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem in trying to interpret the NPOV standard the way you do is that one person's "information" is another person's "slant, scurrilous detail and aspersion". JamesMLane t c 04:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
This isn't an interpretation of NPOV. It's a threshold of inclusion on wikipedia. You may not know this, but I started the original Weiner article as a reaction to Klausutis being created. A tit-for-tat admitted WP:POINT violation. I also voted to delete Weiner because it really doesn't belong. I would vote to delete today. Not because I couldn't find sourced info but because it simply is not encyclopedic.
Here's the philosophic point: The power of Wikipedia to collect and collate information is incredible. People all over the world scouring their local government records and newspapers for every detail and minutae of everyones lives. Everyone is worried about the Patriot Act and what the government might do but here everyone does it for free. If the only standard is published and one person's aspersion is another person's information, we are doomed. The notability standards for people should be high, not low. The inclusion standard for information on people should be high, not low.
I'll give a few examples related to these articles: Weiner plead guilty to a misdemeanor in federal court. Probably will be expunged as a youthful indulgence at some point in the future. There is no need to keep this around forever when a judge and court decide it's no longer relevant. The second is the coroner in Klausutis. Lot's of information about what he may or may not have done. Yet he is a licensed professional subject to sanction by that body. He has no article. Does it make sense to keep those allegations or aspersions forever? Should it follow him in Wikipedia from job to job when there already is licensing body charged to that? And lastly, using your philosophy you could argue that tracking child sex offenders through wikipedia makes a lot of sense. Lots of newspaper coverage, sourcable public records, etc, etc. We could use your argument that it isn't scurrilous and just information. Who wouldn't want to get behind a project to track sex offenders around the world? But is it encyclopedic? Do you want to turn wikipedia into a database of the semi-notable to haunt them with perceived indiscretions of their past? Tbeatty 04:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for help? (Probably quick)

Hi, I realize you're busy, but I was hoping I could tap your legal knowledge for a bit. In researching Doctrine of Exchange I've found two different documents that treat the subject as part of the same case, HERNANDEZ v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. The documents are here and here. However, I can't quite figure out which is which document -- I think the former is from the original case, and the latter is the USCOG commenting on the appeal? But even if I'm right about that, I don't know how the case citations should be formatted to designate these documents. Any assistance would be appreciated. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The Department of Justice document at http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1988/sg880419.txt isn't exactly a "comment" -- it's the Government's brief, the document in which it made its arguments to the Supreme Court. It was submitted in September 1988. After both sides had submitted written briefs, the Court heard oral argument in November 1988, and issued its decision in June 1989. That decision is at your other link; it's the FindLaw document here.
Citing the former document (the brief) is kind of borderline. It was written by lawyers who, while not dishonest, were definitely trying to present one side of an argument. In fact, if a lawyer writing a brief were to abide by the NPOV rule, he or she would arguably be violating professional ethics! In this instance, it appears that what you're relying on is this passage:

This system of mandatory, fixed charges for its programs is an application of a tenet of the Church, the "doctrine of exchange," which provides that "anytime a person receives something, he must pay something back" (Pet. App. 38a-39a).

The DoJ lawyers cite to the Petitioners' Appendix. That would be a collection of the relevant documents from the lower court, including any transcripts of testimony. (On an appeal like this one, neither party can present to the Supreme Court new evidence that hasn't been previously considered by another judge.) Here the Scientologist taxpayers were the petitioners who brought the appeal. It was their responsibility to prepare an appendix with all the relevant documents, including those relied on by the Government. Therefore, we don't really know the source of this assertion. Pages 38a and 39a of the Petitioners' Appendix might be an official Church statement, one approved at the highest levels; or it might be that the DoJ found some pamphlet that a Scientology branch in Palookaville threw together a bit carelessly, which included a phrasing that was more useful for the DoJ's argument; or it might not be a Church statement at all, but a citation to testimony or a sworn affidavit from an expert hired by the DoJ or the IRS. For these reasons, I'd avoid citing it, especially here, where it seems that the Supreme Court's decision already adopted the point you want to cite. (Getting a look at the actual Petitioners' Appendix for a 1989 case is probably doable but difficult. I've never had the need to try to do that for the U.S. Supreme Court because I don't do much federal work.)
The brief is interesting as a presentation of how the Government wanted the Court to treat the Doctrine of Exchange. I suggest including it in "External links".
I put your citation to the Hernandez decision into the standard format for citing U.S. court decisions, by adding a comma after the case name, putting the year in parentheses after the page number, and specifying the page on which the cited quotation occurred. (See Case citation#United States for an explanation of the format.) I also removed your ellipsis mark. You didn't delete any text, only the Court's citation to the Tax Court decision. An ellipsis isn't wrong, but an acceptable alternative is to add "(citations omitted)" at the end. An ellipsis could conceal a major omission; this way, the reader knows it was just citations.
I'm not sure whether that answers your questions, but feel free to follow up if it doesn't. JamesMLane t c 06:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
That makes much more sense, and thank you for formatting the citation. Your reasoning for moving the brief (I didn't realize that's what it was) to External links makes sense. I was looking over the documents again, though, and found that the Supreme Court decision actually affirmed the exact same thing in just about the exact same wording ("'anytime a person receives something, he must pay something back'" in the brief, vs. "any time a person receives something he must pay something back." in the decision.) That should be suitable to cite, right? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's a reliable source -- arguably more reliable than most publications. The Supreme Court hears at least two competing viewpoints on factual assertions, at least on those relevant to the case before it. I leave it to you and others to work out whether to leave it as a Quotation or to incorporate it into the text with a footnote. JamesMLane t c 03:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Please take this as your FINAL warning. If you continue to add information to the Chris Wallace post that is NOT relevant to the topic and does not express NPOV you will be marked as a vandal.

You claim the Bush admin demoted Richard Clarke, however on page 234 of his own book he contradicts that very point.

"I had completed the review of the organizational options for homeland defense and critical infrastructure protection that Secretary Rice had asked me to conduct.

"There was agreement to create a separate senior White House position for critical infrastructure protection and cybersecurity outside the NSC staff. Condi Rice and Steve Hadley assumed that I would continue on the NSC, focusing on terrorism and asked whom I had in mind for the new job that would be created outside the NSC. This is basically Internet. I requested that I be given that assignment, to the apparent surprise of Condi Rice and Steve Hadley." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChaseMaster (talk • contribs) 11:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC).

I've addressed this subject at Talk:Chris Wallace (journalist)#This article is about Wallace, not about 9/11. JamesMLane t c 17:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Wallace

Thanks for the heads-up on the revert. I didn't check the history before my edit. The version you reverted to conveyed the meaning I was aiming for better anyway. Thanks! Porlob 16:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your turn

check out the last paragraph on Wallace's page. I especially like the "however" and "furthermore".--kizzle 18:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

My God, you're picky about this whole "fact" thing. It is painfully obvious that your glib certainty arising from your exceedingly narrow experience is spoiling all my fun ;) Derex 01:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hand wringing over homosexuality and Sen. Santorum's article

I think you might be referring to my edits. Stating the Senator Santorum abhors homosexuality is fact. No editorializing needed or intended. Am I "rather biased"? Yes, in many things, I hate fake Christmas trees, silk plants, margarine, liver, and most of winter. But I keep POV outside of articles. Does the Senator annoy me? Gosh, no, I love people who try to persuade Chrisitans that we are somehow under attack in the nation that has the greatest religous freedom in the world, ever. Maintaining a neutral point of view is not code language for spinning a history of bigotry as fairmindedness. CApitol3 21:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi James, thanks for writing, and sorry for my mix-up. Best, JimCApitol3 00:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wallace clinton interview

Notice: You have previously commented on this article. A discussion has been opened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Chris Wallace interview of Bill Clinton. Regards, Derex 10:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Yes, it does apply to talk pages

I was blcoked for less than what you said (I said it once and then sourced it). See WP:BLP here for a discussion. I specifically said someone lied on a talk page. Jimbo weighed in on policy and said that it absolutely applies to talk pages and across all WP spaces. I don't agree with the blcok that but it is policy. I suggest you refactor your comments. Tbeatty 17:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, and I'll look through that discussion in detail, but I don't see anything improper about the comment of mine that you changed. If need be, instead of using a talk page to accuse SBVT of lying, I could link to an article in the namespace, where a Kerry crewmember is quoted as calling the charges "a pack of lies" (see the quotation from Del Sandusky in Swift Vets and POWs for Truth#Membership, sourced to this news story). If this opinion, clearly attributed to Sandusky, is admissible in an article, then a fortiori the same opinion, clearly attributed to me, is admissible on a talk page.
On your view of the policy, did Fred Bauder violate it by calling the charges "scurrilous aspersions"? He didn't name any living person, but the article on which he was commenting makes clear that, for example, Michael Moore has joined the fray. Your logic would seem to dictate that Fred, by calling Moore's aspersions "scurrilous", has violated BLP re Moore. On my view, of course, Fred's comment was perfectly proper. JamesMLane t c 00:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I thought the same thing, yet when an opinion attributed to me was refactored and I repeated it (and sourced it, BTW), I was blocked per BLP. Accusing people of lying is apparently a libelous statement. If you want to attribute it to someone else, go right ahead, but WP doesn't seem to be the place for your own negative opinions about people in either talk, user or article space. I don't think the libel/BLP would apply to "scurrilous aspersions" as Fred used it as he didn't apply it to anyone in particular. He might have meant as a broad net outside of wikipedia such as the people you mentioned or he might have meant it as an inward looking comment about the motivation of editors that create and defend such things. Only Fred knows what he meant but I presume good faith and I don't know the person/persons/organizations that Fred was characterizing, therefore it's vague enough to stay for me. --Tbeatty 02:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Your personal standard doesn't happen to be the one applied in American law, at least. A defamation plaintiff must prove colloquium, meaning that the allegedly defamatory statement was about the plaintiff. This can be done even when the plaintiff isn't named. See [2]. My opinion is that, if Moore were to sue Fred for defamation, Moore would win the colloquium issue (though his suit would lose because statements of opinion are not actionable).
As for the proper use of talk pages, I haven't yet looked at all this material, but so far I haven't seen a passage that the policy "absolutely" applies to talk pages. Certainly, the purpose of the talk pages is not to provide a forum for me to vent my spleen about political issues, but that shouldn't be a pretext for stifling on-topic discussion. In this instance (a proposed deletion), the argument apparently being put forth by the pro-deletionists was that Wikipedia should not report notable aspersions if those aspersions are "scurrilous". I responded by noting that scurrilousness (scurrilosity?) is a matter of opinion. I supported my point by citing a couple of aspersions that I personally consider scurrilous but that many other people consider noble and true. We don't want to sanitize articles by removing everything that anyone objects to. We also don't want editors trying to form a consensus about whether the SBVT lied, etc., and shaping the article according to their views on the subject. Therefore, we should stick with objective indicia of notability, regardless of whether an aspersion is scurrilous or not.
You may agree or disagree with that argument about the particular deletion being discussed there, but my point is that, when I cited these other examples of aspersions, my purpose was to illustrate and bolster my argument about the precise topic of that particular thread. I was hoping that each reader would take my message: "A policy that gives more leeway to editors' opinion, and that today suppresses the information about a comment that you dislike, might tomorrow be used to suppress information about a comment you support." The first priority is to ensure that the discussion on the talk pages is "uninhibited, robust and wide-open". JamesMLane t c 03:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
You would think that since the Foundation's stated legal position is that editors are responsible for ALL their comments in all spaces, they wouldn't have a policy on correcting defamation since the policy is an adminssion of some culpability/responsibility. And it is not my personal standard. As I said, I merely mentioned my own personal experience on a talk page where I claimed that a person should not be used as a reliable source because they lied. It was refactored and I reposted it with a source. On a user talk page. It was refactored and I was blocked for it. You may argue that I am on WP:POINT kick since I believe what you said about stifling editors comments, but it doesn't change the policy and it came from Jimbo. I don't ever revert refactored comments but it does get editors to think about what they wrote. Discussion inside wikipedia space is never "uninhibited, robust and wide open" as that is not policy. As I understand it, the gist of the interpretation (or Nutshell as seems to be the buzzword of the day) is an exptension of NPA inside Wikipedia to all living persons, inside or outside of Wikipedia and is an extension of Jimbo's philosophy of how people should be treated. --Tbeatty 04:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
And here's what Jimbo thought of your 'source'. Thus spake the WikiGod to T: "But to come up with a 'source' which does not back up the claim *at all*, and to continue to make the claim, is just so far beyond unacceptable that if you don't understand it, I don't know what else to say about it." Seems like not much has changed. Derex 10:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A little (spammed) thank you

➨ ЯEDVERS awards this Barnstar to James M Lane for reasoned, thoughtful production of ideas when asked for them in a debate that have helped me and others and have thus improved Wikipedia for everybody. Thank you.
➨ ЯEDVERS awards this Barnstar to James M Lane for reasoned, thoughtful production of ideas when asked for them in a debate that have helped me and others and have thus improved Wikipedia for everybody. Thank you.


[edit] Walter Andrew Stephenson

Please see [3] BenBurch 00:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Upcoming NYC Meetup

You wanted to know when the next meetup was being organized in New York City. Plan for Saturday, 9 December 2006. While you're at it. Come help us decide on a restaurant. See: Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC. Spread the word. Thanks. —ExplorerCDT 22:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hola

Given your recent comments on MM, you might want to check out this discussion, especially if a concensus leads to some sort of incorporation into policy. Long live the cabal. 'Qapla! --kizzle 08:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

What can we do to get relaible sources to become policy? I think we really need this to happen, and I also agree with you that we basically need a complete rewrite. Do you have any ideas on the matter that I could work on in my userspace...just leave me a comment here and I'll check back later. Thanks.--MONGO 09:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] also

I'm writing a grad paper on instances when news broke on the Internet that the mainstream media picked up on, I already have Macaca on YouTube, Wonkette and Jessica Cutler, Little Green Footballs and Dan Rather... do you have any other good examples that I can use? --kizzle 05:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] keep losing link on Patrick Stewart (soldier) page

James -- I was just looking at the Patrick Stewart (soldier) page and noticed that the reference link for the last sentence (regarding the recent engraving of the pentagram on his tombstone) has disappeared. It looks like you were wrestling with this a few days ago, but the most recent two entries (both of which note that you were fixing the ref) don't seem to work. The third most recent (14:55, 22 November 2006) does seem to work. I'm tempted to just revert to that entry, but it looks like something funny might be going on here, and I thought it best to refer the problem back to you. What think you? -Kenllama 14:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC) 14:55, 22 November 2006

[edit] Auto Parts Place

I think I have fought well for my entry on this article and though the new Admin has finally decided to delete it, I do appreciate the added insight which you have given. I know that if the involved editors gave time to try to search for the company's site "www.autopartsplace.com" they will understand a new meaning for notability. I found it funny that the new admin gave the reason that notability should be seen without the use of technical knowledge. First, I think he failed to see that the company is internet based, hence this medium must be it's main basis for notability. He failed to aknowledge that indeed the company is in the top ten for three major search engines (Google, Yahoo! and MSN). I am new with Wikipedia, but if it makes any difference I think editors like you should be given adminship.

In the debate page for Auto Parts Place, I did give instances where companies were allowed to stay even when they are in the same condition as my entry. I do respect the outcome of the debate. I guess it goes to shows that Wikipedia is not yet prepared in some aspects to accomodate new fields in business like ecommerce. (An irony given that it is an online entity) I think that the Category Auto Parts Retailers in the United States should be changed to something more specific so as to exclude the likes of Auto Parts Place without debate. A good replacement would be Auto Parts Retailers in the United States with National Commercials.

Keep the good work man! The likes of you gives much needed wisdom in this place. --Auto Parts for Brains 13:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you're around

you might want to help your boy out here. --kizzle 21:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meetup NYC

Hey, just wanted to say hi and thank you for coming to the WikiMeetup in NYC this past weekend. —ExplorerCDT 04:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Club of New York

Come see: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club of New York. —ExplorerCDT 14:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [1]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Military service controversy

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/m/User_talk%7EJamesMLane_fe1e.html"