User talk:JamesMLane/Archive3

Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards

I have drafted a proposal for a new voluntary association on Wikipedia (joining groups like the Wikipedia:The Business and Economics Forum and the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club) to promote discussion of a sort of system of expert review on Wiki. Please take a look and add your ideas. 172 02:42, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Michael Bluejay and others attack Aesthetic Realism entry

I tried to write you directly, hope you got the message. I asked if you realize there is a concerted attack. I asked you now if you can, in all honesty, permit it to go on without intervention. The attacker(s) have only one objective. They are not interested in knowledge particularly but in smearing--adeptly using quotes out of context to convey a bizarre picture. As an attorney I trust you can detect the ill-will that is impelling these sometimes jocular, always angry attacks.

Arnold Perey

irregularities title

What's up, I didn't exactly understand your vote about the naming for the title... not a flame, I just didn't understand what you meant. Does this mean you want to keep the title as it is? I would just like to add "voting" somewhere in the title so it excludes other possible election controversies, as "2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities" seems to be able to include pretty much anything, including the debate topics. Voting seems to narrow the focus enough. What do you think? --kizzle 20:58, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, except I don't think you're going to get too much support for statistical analysis, because that seems like a prime target for people who think this page is original research, but I'm ok with it. --kizzle 21:47, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, so now you found a better source on the ohio recount you think you're better than I am? ;) --kizzle 13:39, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Chess

Thanks for pointing out the anomaly. I stand corrected.

sbvt talk archives

fixed. it was just a problem with the move not recognizing subpage syntax. Wolfman 21:11, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contest

Posted on User_talk:ClockworkSoul

To TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsClockworkTroll: Thanks for giving us all a good chuckle with your contest! You're a prince. JamesMLane 06:30, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It was a blast to have! Plus, I like my shiny new name! ClockworkSoul 06:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

apeman

Hi. Just wanted to let you know I turned Apeman from a redirect to a disambig as we both suggested on the VfD page. As you had some interest I thought I'd let you know and encourage you to check it out and see if you think it needs any work. -R. fiend 17:06, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you think some of the specific hominids should be mentioned then you can and add them if you wish. I was hesitant to; apeman being an unscientific term I didn't want to have to play specifics about what should be included as an "apeman" vs. early human. I thought I might ask my father (a professor of evolutionary biology) but I think he'd frown on the term "apeman" altogether in such context. But thanks for your input. And if you can think of other examples (particularly in fiction; I swear there are more. Morlocks? I forget how ape-like they were in the novel) throw them in there. -R. fiend 22:15, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re: kryptonite lock

...Ooops, Good point, I've changed that paragraph accordinglyDhodges 06:24, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Request IRC chat

I am requesting IRC chat on #wikipedia. Kevin Baas | talk 23:15, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)

Multi-Licensing

The multi-licensing template has recently been clarified to read: "I agree to multi-license my text contributions, unless otherwise stated, ..." Someone had pointed out that it wasn't clear (a) which contributions were included (media files are not included by default) and (b) whether the notice takes priority over other notices. In the the case of (b), the "unless otherwise noted" clause should make this quite clear. I don't know if that makes a difference to you and your notice on your page, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 13:47, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Meetup

Your name is on the list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC for December 12. In case you forgot to check the page, the venue and time have been both been set. We are planning on meeting at the Moonstruck Diner at 1:30pm. Just wanted to let you know. -- – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 23:08, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

2004 U.S. election voting controversies

This is quite good work I must say. This definately clears out most of the clutter and presents the information in a manner that is both concise and relevant. I could certainly support this wholeheartedly. You are correct that we still disagree on daughter pages, but if any such pages are as well done as this one, I would put such quibbles aside in any renewed VFD vote for the sake of community unity. Indrian 03:28, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer

The problem with making Bobby Fischer into a "chess champion" is that he ceases to be a human being. By taking out the theme which HE clearly makes plain that his life was divided into two parts and the second part governed the first, it is impossible to understand Fischer. These are not just religious beliefs the way they have been restyled they are his life and governed everything. Also removed is the reason WHY Fischer would not play in 1972 and by removing all of that text the article go back to confusion. The reason why he would not play when overlaid on the timetable is because his whole world had just come crashing down and he eventually turned into the hostile and suspicious person that he is today. This article makes Fischer into a cardboard chess piece. I do not wish to get into any sort of revert war so I am writing to you here. Would you like to discuss this a little more? Obviously it is easier and quicker to wade in and delete than it is to create something and by just wiping out half of my text without offering anything new leads to creative frustration on my part. I would like to discuss this matter further with you with a view to resolution that we can both agree with. MPLX/MH 06:13, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

summary article

I like what you've done, however I do think you need about 2 more paragraphs on each subject, ideally we should use your article as kind of a "portal" to go to the other articles in depth. This month is hell for me, I think when I get a chance i'm going to try to help out on the summary aticle... I don't know if you've already done it but the subsections should mirror the sub-pages and soon-to-be subpages of the main page. Good work :) --kizzle 06:33, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I was thinking, if we use a summary article as a starting point, do you want to put back in pre-election night controversies (i.e. debate stuff), so as to have one place where all the 2004 U.S. election controversies can go? Using short summaries, it would all fit. Just a thought. --kizzle 03:13, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Licensing categories

You could always try moving the licensing information to a subpage like User:JamesMLane/Copyright or User:JamesMLance/Licensing. You could also COPY the information to the subpage and delete just the categories from your main user page. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 18:18, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

category name

I want to start a category for govenment watchdog groups such as Judicial Watch, Project on Government Oversight, Center for Public Integrity, Common Cause, etc. The obvious category is "Government watchdog organizations", but I'm not sure the word "watchdog" is really neutral. Another possibility is "Government accountability organizations", but that is a bit narrower in scope and less clear. I'm stumped. Does any better name for such a category spring to mind for you? Thanks. Wolfman 19:18, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good point. I guess I'll go with "U.S. government watchdog groups". "Oversight" somehow implies an official sanction to me. If anyone objects, I suppose the category can always be renamed. Thanks again. Wolfman 20:02, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. Government watchdog groups in the U.S. Wolfman 20:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Dry Drunk"

Your right, I guess two of the other three articles, lulled me into giving that one short shrift. Thanx for catching that.--Silverback 16:32, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"first rate" vs. "second rate"

You made my day with that edit summary. Cheers, --MarkSweep 17:26, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog

Over at the Sollog article there's been mention of a federal court case involving the subject of the article. All we've got is a case number, 96CV 1499, and I can't coax anything from Lexis about this article, but I've always been crappy at legal research. Perhaps you could give us a hand if you have some spare wiki time? Thanks. Gamaliel 00:38, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the VfD discussion should be linked from the talk page - it was there at some point, but must have been lost in one of the many refactorings. I'll re-add it. Cheers --Rlandmann 22:13, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tucson, Arizona

Hi James,

First let me say that I have great respect for your vote. You seem to me to be genuinely interested in convention, while some other people seem interested in playing down the importance of the O'odham language or discussing more specific, irrelevant issues.

Second off, I have a couple of responses to your comment.

While New York City does not include Nieuw Amsterdam in the first sentence, there is an entire article at Nieuw Amsterdam, and it's actually fairly long. There is no such article for Cuk Ṣon, and I don't think there should be - there's not a whole lot that could go there that doesn't belong at Tucson.
While Nieuw Amsterdam is indeed another name for New York, it isn't often used in a modern context as a reference to the city by any of its residents or by anybody living within a couple of hundred miles (to my knowledge). I'm not sure popular Dutch usage in the Netherlands is even to call it "Nieuw Amsterdam" - I have a sneaking suspicion that most Hollanders call it "Nieuw York", and perhaps the same is true of Hollandophone New Yorkers. In addition, when the name IS used in English-language literature, it is often written "New Amsterdam", and usually refers to the Dutch colonial era of New York. Cuk Ṣon, on the other hand, is used in a modern context by speakers of O'odham to refer to Tucson, past *and* present, and English usage is almost 0. (edit: Haha, indeed! The article on the Dutch Wikipedia is titled New York, and the name "Nieuw Amsterdam" isn't even mentioned as far as I can see... wow)
While the indigenous inhabitants of most of what is now the US have been at least decimated, the entire Southwest (Arizona, New Mexico) escaped that fate almost entirely, having much more interactions with the much kinder Mexicans (most Mexicans are at least part American indigine, so it would be a different context, plus the ways of life were more similar), until the late 1800s and early 1900s. For this reason, the percentage of Native American languages in the Southwest which are in serious danger of extinction or are already extinct is very low, and is almost exclusively limited to languages spoken on the Arizona-California border (Mojave, Chemehuevi, Yuma, etc. - but even some of these are doing relatively well). The two largest - by far - "Indian reservations" in the United States are both located in Arizona, the Navajo Nation and the Tohono O'odham Nation, both taking up huge chunks of land. Many other reservations in Arizona and New Mexico rank among the largest in the country - Hopi (that's the name of the reservation, just "Hopi"), the Hualapai Indian Reservation, the Havasupai Indian Reservation, the San Carlos Apache and White Mountain Apache reservations... all very huge. Now, in case you stopped reading or started skimming (I feel I'm rambling now), I will get to the point (so you can notice that there if you don't want to read all that above): Native speakers of O'odham represent a significant chunk of the population of the Greater Tucson Area (between 7 and 15%), and they all call the place Cuk Ṣon. If you include O'odham in the Mexican portion of the Tohono O'odham Nation (yes, it's that big, it spans the border), for many of whom Tucson is where you are going when you are "going into town", it's more like 15-20%, although I wouldn't use that figure normally. So the name is very relevant, and I believe for that reason it deserves treatment similar to that of minority language names at articles on Frisian cities, some articles on Polish cities, articles on some German places, some French places, and some British places, where it is included in parentheses right after the English name. --Node 22:42, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment

Thank you for your comment. I was really soliciting comment only from the individual concerned. Someone else gave a link into that user's talk page from a much more popular page, which probably accounts for why there are so many other comments on there.

There are more public fora for a wider consultation, and there are a number of issues that I feel may warrant a wider hearing. But I do not like the idea of doing it on a "named" basis. I have no desire to cause the individual concerned more public embarrassment than he has already warranted. But there are a couple of issues that may warrant a wider audience. These issues are:

1. If a Wikipedian (WPian A) invites a user to perform a background search to prove a point, is it not reasonable for other Wikipedians (WPian B) to do so and to report on the outcome of that search insofar as it is relevant? It is accepted that the following would be unreasonable: (a) where WPian A does not request or volunteer such a search, and WPian B uses info from such a search against Wpian A; (b) any such search that goes outside the scope of that volunteered by WPian A; (c) information uncovered that is not relevant to WPian A's argument or position on Wikipedia being used against WPian A.

[The facts here are that WPian A was arguing he had no conflict of interest and invited an internet background search. An internet background search was performed that showed that WPian A had been publicly censured for giving rise to and not recognised a conflict of interest.]

2. Is it reasonable to have someone in the role that we are discussing who has been publicly censured for "conflict of interest" and for "engaging in acts prejudicial to the administration of justice"?

[My answer is yes - yours may well be no. But here I am only suggesting opening up the discussion wider, not arguing the point.]

As noted above, I am thinking about raising these issues in the abstract. At present, I have not thought of a good way of doing so. If you can think of good ways of asking the abstract question, please let me know. Also, let me know if you think these points are of so little interest (bearing in mind the position those who come across this user will find themselves in), please let me know too - though in the latter instance, I'd be interesting to know why. Kind regards, jguk 16:00, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I shall return

Thanks for the kind words, James. I'm sure I'll be back. But, I've been using this as a crutch to avoid dealing with my real life, and frankly it's a mess. Now that it's semester break, and I can over-indulge, my weakness has become a real handicap. I'm trying to make myself stay off for at least a couple months; we'll see how it goes. Obviously, I haven't quite managed to break the habit yet, as I couldn't help checking in today. Oddly enough, I've grown quite fond of a bunch of people I've never even met, particularly my fellow veterans of the Rex wars. Speaking of which, you might keep a friendly eye on your sockpuppet. Best to take such comments seriously, in my sad experience, without over-dramatizing them. Wolfman 04:42, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... so JML is "Feldspar" Ha! I knew it! 216.153.214.94 04:50, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On to Hiroshima

Thanks for the invite, James. I went over and took a quick look at the Hirshima article; I will put some suggestions on the talk page when I have sufficient time to do a decent job of it. Thanks for your vote on the Tucson article. --Gary D 02:05, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Slashdot

No problem.

Well done on making your first +5 :-)

James F. (talk) 15:09, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tucson, Arizona and more

Hi. I saw that you voted on the RFC regarding Tucson, Arizona, and I thought you might be interested in commenting on a broader application of the formatting to other city articles. The discussion (for now) is at Talk: Tucson, Arizona#Other Arizona and nearby cities. (It might get moved to WikiProject Cities, if there's interest in doing so.) Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 02:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kaij Mek

It was suggested by somebody on some talkpage (either Tucson or Mesa) that if the vast majority of the people in a place called it one thing, and it's not widely known outside of that place (had you heard of that place by either name before you saw the article? Most Arizonans haven't either), that the styleguide suggests that that should be the first name given. --Node 00:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Links

Thanks for the sub page suggestion, but I probably would have ended up throwing a {{db}} on that in my user space, anyway, so it really didn't have much benefit either way. Anyway, I'm glad I was able to help. - Vague | Rant 07:30, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

RFC

If you don't mind me asking, I'd appriciate your support at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mbecker. Thanks. — マイケル ₪ 04:40, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject New York City

Hello, I've started WikiProject New York City, and from your edits it seems you might be interested. See its talk page for the beginning of a discussion on the standardization of neighborhood names, and bringing New York City up to featured status.--Pharos 13:40, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

chickenhawk

excellet work fixing the chickenhawk pages. cheers, Kingturtle 22:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for reformatting Diplomacy's links

I cringed when I saw them, but I didn't feel up to changing them around. Ground 01:46, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the reason you saw no Diplomacy stuff at the "njudge" link is because there was a space between the directory name's slash and "njudge". This item may have been up for VfD recently, and the early "delete" votes may have been caused by its own article having the same bad link, if I recall correctly. Please recheck the URL without the space. If that's the njudge, which is valid and notable enough for the Diplomacy page's bottom links but not for its own WP article, then please consider editing the link back in, with the extra space removed. Thanks for helping edit the article! Barno 20:15, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

VVAW and WSI debate

I am sorry but where do you get off pushing your nose into this debate? This is a pretty clear cut copyright violation dispute (I have many more examples other that what was given on the sample page). Instead of banning this user what is, and let me repeat incase it has not sunk in yet, A CLEAR CASE OF CAPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT/PLAGARISM, everyone goes out of their way to fucking coddle him?

Please, do us all a favor and stay out of this, because as long as this user stays on, this revert war will not end. TDC 05:18, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Las Vegas

I replied to your comments on the Las Vegas user talk page. — DV 04:10, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: While I was here, I fixed Merovingian's infection of your user talk page with his runaway font color tag, that was causing the remainder of your page to have a strange color. I hope he updates that darn thing! — DV 04:10, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

expand summary article

I will have some time over the next few days to take your article and break up the current one into daughter articles if you want to help me, so that we can present a fully-fleshed reorganization starting with your summary article rather than arguing over it in the talk page with ryan.--kizzle 23:12, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have come to the conclusion that I am either crazy, stupid, or speaking a diffferent language form the controversies discussions. --kizzle 21:33, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Social Security (United States)

I don't always agree with your POV on this article, but I would like to say that your work there is good and is appreciated. Many thanks. Stirling Newberry 16:24, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the article is in good hands with you. I won't be editting it much because at this point I am a paid partisan.

Stirling Newberry 16:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush

A mess, isn't it? Rick K 09:01, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that date vandalism didn't get caught by several people who were reverting vandals, and got kept over several reverts. That was why I made the attempt to get back to a solid version, but I don't think it worked, either. Rick K 09:13, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Kudos on your Dubya article work

Good Job James, we've got a two pronged attack from both the idiots on our side who think calling Bush dirty names will help anything, and from Right Wing censors like [MONGO] who are trying to use Wiki as a Propanganda device.

Thanks for being an inspiration to newbie Wikipedians such as myself! --Karmafist 02:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of MONGO, is there any way we can stop him from censoring by reversion?

--Karmafist 05:56, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey, some admin is trying to intimidate me from editing the Bush page, here's what he said...

"==POV warning== - If I see you adding any more POV edits to the George W. Bush page, you will be banned from Wikipedia. I'm not playing around. Hadal 14:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) "

Who can I complain to about this guy? Obviously that kind of threat isn't how normal admins talk, is it? --Karmafist 03:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for sticking up for me James, I completely agree with you. He even added an external link for the "Dry Drunk" debate! Maybe we are making difference in there...'

--Karmafist 14:56, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Golden Nugget (resort)

James, thank you for fixing that link to the Landry's Restaurants press release announcing the acquition of the Golden Nugget Las Vegas. I don't understand why it suddenly stopped working on the landrysseafood.com domain it was working for most of the day. Again thanks for catching that error. Misterrick 00:02, 06 February 2005 (UTC)[reply]

request for help

What's up. I have always respected your ability to stay relatively neutral (as compared to the rest of us) in dealing with the facts and not letting personal opinions sway your edits from the truth, and I take with me from you that it is better to tell the truth, for better or worse towards your argument, and let it stand up for itself. I'm trying to put together a framework for a screenplay version of the 2004 U.S. Election Controversy page that I want to write, and I was wondering if you'd be interested in contributing to it. My intent is basically, if I had 2 hours to tell someone what went wrong in the election, what would I say? Not only do I need someone to double-check that my sources are not dubious, but I need someone to help me fill in the missing pieces that I can't see. Nothing would make me happier then if you every once in a while told me that some source I'm using has been discredited, or there's an additional rebuttal that I'm missing, or that any part, whether general or specific is most probably false. Also, I'm trying to fit the general layout of the movie as if it were a criminal on trial, in that the movie acts as a prosecutor building a case through preliminary evidence (the trail), motive, means, opportunity... and seeing as you're an attorney, your input would be greatly appreciated. I'm willing to do 90% of the work, but however much you would like to contribute I would appreciate it. It's going to be somewhat parallel to the current article, except that it frames an argument and draws conclusions (which wikipedia cannot do), and its target audience is towards a movie audience, in that we cannot wikilink to outside concepts, and thus the content needs to be self-contained. If you're not interested at all, feel free to tell me to bugger off, I won't be offended :) User:Kizzle/smoke--kizzle 01:00, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I finished a rough draft of the exit polls section, if you have some free time I'd like to know what you think and where I can do better. I have much to do in the actual verbiage of the page, so just focus on the argument being presented. --kizzle 19:41, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

it begins: [1]

this page is looong

What's your archive policy? Kevin Baas^talk 15:23, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

Killian

As you have recently expressed interest in this article, please see Talk:Killian_documents#A_poll. Wolfman 18:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Social Security

You asked about the sort of thing that I do in the social security fight, this is public example of the sort of work that is going on behind the scenes. [2]

Global

Global Warming

That was a helpful reorganization of the global warming page. Thanks. :) It had grown in need of some reorganization to better clarify the major issues involved. — Cortonin | Talk 09:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Heh, whoops. My bad. I misread the diffs. Well, thanks for fixing that typo and header capitalization then. :) — Cortonin | Talk 18:16, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the modesty on GW (though dodging a firestorm might mean you are wiser than I). The cabal on the page is right now using a revert war to prevent the changes and even prevent escalation to the larger wikicommunity. I believe that some larger consensus is needed there, and that discussion has broken down. (Side note, you have one of my favorite prints on your user page) Best. Stirling Newberry 18:36, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Genealogy

Cribbswh 13:28, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that Genealogy is not relevent to the New York article. New York-specific genealogy is as much relevent as New York history or New York economy. There are many who look for state-specific information, including genealogy, and having quality resources to refer them to is a good thing.

Killian

Repeat3: No originals have been released, only photocopies of "unsubstantiated provenance"

Received your 3RR message. Please see Killian Documents Talk Page and respond to dialog comments there. 216.153.214.94 07:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I'd appreciate a comment on the talk page about my proposed (large) change. Since you and Zenmaster have been the most active debaters w/r/t my changes in general, I wanted your input before considering a large edit. I'll post this at Zen's too, but I think my proposal in no way affects the POV of the article; I just want to move the details of the typographic arguments off the page while keeping a summary of same with a pointer to (See: Typographical arguments...etc). I think it will make the article much more readable, and again, without changing the POV. Kaisershatner 14:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for your work against the move vandal.

--Silverback 11:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, indeed! Best wishes, -Willmcw 11:32, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Rex

No problem, I see it's not the first time you've had difficulty with this user! Anilocra 16:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with simply blocking his (unique) IP address(es). If he wants to make legitimate edits, he can do so under his Rex account. Right now he's hiding behind an IP to escape accountability for his vandalism, and I have no problem with blocking someone like that. Neutrality^talk 23:41, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

That's bunk and Neutrality knows it. One does not have to log-in, in order to edit. 216.153.214.94 03:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/District Attorney's Office

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:District Attorney's Office has been moved to (what we hope is its final stop) Wikipedia:Association of Member Investigations. We're working on refining and improving our organisation and message. As such, I thought I'd ask that you consider giving your vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/District Attorney's Office a second thought. Thanks! :-) BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo

Hi. I think you may have inadvertently added your contribution over at Terri Schiavo to a vandalized version and I have reverted it. Couldn't really find what you added because it was such a mess. Please add it again. Preisler 15:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom case

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 3 is now open. Please add evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 3/Evidence. --mav 02:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lancaster

Hello Mr Lane... The anon here... From our previous discussions regarding the Palmdale article, I would assume that you are a Wiki Administrator. I would like to talk with you about something regarding the Lancaster page. If you look on the discussion page for the disambiguation page, you could probably follow what has been happening...

Basically here is the overview... There is some Brit with the screenname User:Duncharris that changed the Lancaster link to go to the English city instead of the disambiguation page. So I changed it back and gave him my reasons for doing so, which is that there are 3 Lancasters in the world that are important, 4 if you include the Ohio city. Although the English city is the original, the Pennsylvania city is the most thought of when using the term, and the California city is the largest. All three of these cities could give credability to having the primary link. As I see it, all three are equal in importance and therefore the link should go to the disambiguation page, the way it was originally up to a few weeks ago. I also explained that there are cities out there that are greater than any of these Lancasters combined that have to share a disambiguation page like San Jose. So if neither San Jose can have precedence, how can a particular Lancaster? Well, he changed it back again, so now I wish for a Wiki administrator to get involved so that it can be changed back the way it was originally and have the page protected from this arrogant British biased vandalism. Thanx... --Anon 02:41, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Detractor websites

Hello Mr. Lane. Glad we could agree on how to handle the issue. That was an excellent suggestion and you made the Ann Coulter page look how I actually intended. Have a good one. Equinox137 14:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

GWB alcohol section

Thanks for adding some good solid fact on a touchy subject. Hopefully all the Bush lover and haters can leave it be and just accept what is truth. But then again, that never happens...Harro5 (talk · contribs) 08:16, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

another vote

Talk:9/11_domestic_conspiracy_theory#Title_vote_.28various_options.29 Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 19:56, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

Thanks for rescuing the Aesthetic Realism article

Thanks very much for rescuing the Aesthetic Realism article. (We'll see how long it lasts....) I have no problem with the Aesthetic Realists telling their story, I just want the opposing side represented. I don't even expect the opposing side to have an equal amount of space, I just think it should exist. That's probably the biggest difference between the AR people and me -- I prefer that people get both sides of the story. They prefer to present only their side.

Most distressing is their "two ships passing in the night" form of debate. I say that AR is a cult, and they say, "No, this is a philosophy founded by an acclaimed poet." When did I ever dispute that? I've never criticized the *philosophy* of AR (besides their description of homosexuality as mental illness), I've critized *the method in which they promote its study*, which is definitely cult-like. (And of course, several other former members all say the same thing on my site.) But the AR people rarely acknowledge that criticism, they pretend it's an attack on the philosophy of AR itself, which it's not. Many of the former member/critics on my website say the same thing.

And I guess their behavior became pretty clear when you simply tried to add neutrality and they reacted like it was an attack. They're predictable, I'll give them that.

Anyway, thanks again for your help. Michaelbluejay 05:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Magellan

Thanks for your fix. - Taxman 19:23, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realists strike back

Thanks for your comment, but I don't think I can claim to have rescued the article. As you'll see from my comment on Talk:Aesthetic Realism, I've followed your lead in giving up on trying to make it a good article.I'm curious, though, about the size of the group. Is there any hard evidence anywhere? I would've thought it was bigger than the 120 that (I think) you estimated). My perspective may be bent, though, because I live in Manhattan, where I gather they're strongest. For a while I patronized a bicycle shop (Conrad's) where the "Victim of the Press" buttons were to be seen. JamesMLane 06:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

No problem, I don't expect you to be vigilant about maintaining the integrity of an article that nearly no one will ever read. Heck, I'm an interested party, and I gave up myself, pretty much.

As to the size of the group, the estimate isn't mine -- I'm in contact with many former students, some of whom left only recently, and they let me know what's going on. In its heydey of the 70's the group had several hundred members (whoops, "students"), but they've really dwindled. Check out one of their weekly presentations and see how many people are there. Basically, they've been unsuccessful at getting new believers, so as the students die or wise up and leave, they're not being replaced. They're doomed, even if I did nothing.

As for being their being "strongest" in Manhattan, that's the ONLY place they are! Sure, people phone in from all over the world to have consultations, but there's no established presence anywhere else but the Village. The reason is simple: They can't control anything that happens outside their little sphere. When my family moved to Texas my mother tried to start an AR study group there. Were the AR people elated that she was spreading AR to another state? No, they couldn't control it. She got no support at all.

I'll have to check out Conrad's when I'm in NYC this summer. I'm an avid commuter bicyclist myself.

I liked your comments to Perey: Let the community decide what's NPOV. Perey is so laughably POV that the only people who can't see that are him and the other ARists.

Regarding "The Obvious Bias of James M Lane" -- I would say of course you're biased, inasmuch as you couldn't help avoid noticing Perey's blatant feelings of persecution and his fear of fair play. Michaelbluejay 10:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I thought you might have an opinion on this: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Arnold Perey - Jonathunder 20:10, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

LVwiki and GFDL compliance

RE: GFDL compliance

In the GFDL section titled: VERBATIM COPYING

You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially,
provided that this License, the copyright notices, and 'the license notice saying this License
applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions
whatsoever to those of this License. You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. However, you may accept
compensation in exchange for copies. If you distribute a large enough number of copies you must
also follow the conditions in section 3.

Although, the section titled: MODIFICATIONS, subsection B:

B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship
of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors
of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you
from this requirement.

A "Title Page" is not defined as the articles text, but a page preceding a text. Since there is no "Title Page" on a wiki, and to assure its compliance, a statement is located on the LVwiki Main Page which is as close to a title page as legally described. Locating and defining the five principal authors of a wiki page is a time consuming and nearly impossible task, and considering it is a requirement of the GFDL, the originating article is also required to do so (which Wikipedia would also be in violation of). Since I see no five principal authors listed, I will assume a work of an entity. Which is listed on each page used within LVwiki that resulted from text and/or images of Wikipedia, and on the LVwiki Main Page.

And in subsection I:

I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at
least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title
Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title,
year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item
describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence.

Linking to the "Preserved" History Page of any wiki document would not reflect an accurate representation of authorship due to the on-going alterations to any wiki page. Plus new authors listed would not have the same rights to the original text. Linking to the actual document page is not a requirement of the GFDL, nor in the case of any wiki article, reflective of the original (preserved) text. A statement or acknowledgement of the articles original source is the best compromise found in this case.

LVwiki is within the terms of the GFDL by:

Stating on the Title Page (Main Page) and on each article page, the source of the original text.
Not adding additional requirements to the licensing.
Not impeding viewing or coping.
Including, as best possible, a copy of the GFDL.

Guy M/LV ^(praise) 08:01, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Axis of evil

If you want to revert my edit, I have no problem with that. I just wanted to make the actual quote stand out. I did glance at the Talk page, but couldn't see any mention of formatting. AlistairMcMillan 23:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the Bluejay writing

Can't you see, Mr. Lane, that there is a concerted attack in progress?

In all honesty, don't you want to do something about it?

Arnold Perey

As to what should be done, let's consider an example from last summer. There was a concerted attack against John Kerry about his Vietnam service. We did something about it. We reported the criticisms, properly attributed, and the responses, properly attributed, and presented the evidence cited by each side. I invite your attention to the article on John Kerry military service controversy. It isn't perfect, but it's far, far better than any version of the Aesthetic Realism article that you've championed.

Now, here's what should not be done: We should not suppress all information that AR students and consultants (is that the preferred phrase?) find disquieting or unwelcome, on the theory that "Aesthetic Realism is a beautiful thing and should be protected, not maligned." That comment on the talk page completely misunderstands the mission of Wikipedia. We aren't here to protect AR any more than we're here to malign it. We're here to inform about it. That includes fairly reporting on the views of notable critics. You think Bluejay is a liar with bad motivations? Well, feel free to think so. That's what I think about those "Swift Vet" sleazeballs who tried to do a hatchet job on Kerry. I would never agree with censoring their views, though. JamesMLane 21:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Stone and Davenbelle

Hi! Trey Stone has Requested Arbitration with me:

You are mentioned in evidence that I have presented and I'm bringing this to your attention. Comments and evidence of your own are welcome.

Sincerely, Davenbelle 01:06, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Street addresses

FYI, I posted a question about this at the The village pump. No comments yet. Vegaswikian 05:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Elizabeth II

Please note that I have disputed the neutrality of this article. Jguk reverted my NPOV template, claiming that the NPOV dispute is just a personal campaign of one person. Whig 09:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vote at GWB article

I invite your vote at the George Bush article [[3]]--MONGO 05:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

I just wanted to ask you: do you wish to be considered a disputant on Aesthetic Realism? – Clockwork Soul 22:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JamesMLane. It does in fact make things a great deal easier when there are a number of disputants. I'm also very glad that you're willing to help out with the article.

Finally, regarding your odd experience trying to reply on my talk page: I repeated what you said you did, and got the same result. I have no idea what causes it, but it's probably some odd bug in the software. Well, no harm done. – Clockwork Soul 00:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies: I accidentally ommitted the word "smaller", as in "It does in fact make things a great deal easier when there is a smaller number of disputants." I'm sorry about the confusion, my mind has been elsewhere lately. – Clockwork Soul 00:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush

I had to revert your change, because it left an insult in the first line. Sorry! I don't know where you were reverting to, so I left it for you to sort out. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 14:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MacGregor/TIPT

Besides its corporate training and (so far nonexistent) distance learning programs, Toronto Institute of Pharmaceutical Technology lists four training programs [4] [5] [6] [7]. Three of these say that a Canadian B.Sc. is required (apparently any B.Sc.) while one only requires you to have completed Grade 12. I recognize this as a common tactic among educational providers of this type — essentially, selling a lightly-regarded vocational program by creating an impression that the school itself is more prestigious and focused on more advanced training, when in fact these advanced programs barely exist, if at all. --Michael Snow 16:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, I initially misread your post-secondary as meaning post-graduate. I don't really want this to focus on bright-line rules as to what kinds of schools are notable; I don't want to categorically exclude an elementary school, or even a preschool, but I also don't want to categorically include all run-of-the-mill corporate and vocational schools. --Michael Snow 16:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Social Security

For some reason, the page came up as an older version, and that is what I edited. The current page is good, and your revert was entirely correct. My mistake. --Goodoldpolonius2 23:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Spitzer

Thank you for the embarassing correction on the Spitzer article. Must have been an overzealous staff member. Nobs01 19:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Request

Hello, James. Is it possible for you to update the John Kerry and John Kerry military service controversy with the information from the report here (regarding Kerry's SF-180 records release)? I'd do it myself, but you seem to be the expert in these matters. With warm regards --Neutrality^talk 03:41, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: I left a message for our friend Rex. Neutrality^talk 03:42, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Bush article introduction

I think the mention of Bush's professional sports dealings should be further down and not in the intro. After all, his stake in the Rangers was only 1.8 percent, and his involvement in the petroleum industry was much more significant. Space is at a premium in the intro, and I think we ought to conserve space for the basic facts:

Full name
Date of birth
American politician
Current U.S. president
Member of prominent Bush family
Republican
Governor of Texas
Defeated John McCain and then Al Gore in the most contested election in U.S. history
September 11 attacks
Defeated John Kerry in 2004 to win a second four-year term

--Neutrality^talk 19:34, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Ownership interest is not relevant. What is relevant is whether or not he was an active or silent partner, and if this was a full time or near full time job. Similarly, he has a .0000000003% ownership interest in the USA (as we all do) but his current full time job (working for the USA) is very relevant. NoSeptember ^(talk) 19:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should move this discussion to the article talk page. My reasons for mentioning the point in the lead section are: (1) His involvement was significant; he was the managing general partner of a major league baseball team, a full-time job of significant responsibility (including his responsibility for the decision to trade Sammy Sosa, yuk yuk yuk); and (2) It was politically important, because it gave him a lot of visibility in Texas and was the sine qua non for his successful run for governor. If he were merely a son of George H. W. Bush who'd managed to run a couple oil companies into the ground, he wouldn't have had a chance. I'd say his sports involvement is more important than the information that, among his several rivals for the GOP nomination in 2000, McCain was the one who lasted the longest. If the lead section were unduly long, I'd remove McCain's name, but as it is I think it should stay, along with the glancing reference to professional sports. I'm not saying that the lead section should go into the details that the sport was baseball, that the franchise was the Rangers, that Bush helped organize the investor group that bought the team, and that Bush ran it as general manager; all that can go in the body of the article. JamesMLane 20:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rfc

James, I made some impute on the Rfc. I may have, no I know I didn't format it well so I'll allow your meticulousness take over. I may add a thought or two and if you think I have already been long winded show me where and I'll try to reduce the redundancy.--MONGO 01:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That works...whatever happens, happens.--MONGO 20:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gorka!

Searching wikipedia for text "John Gorka" I received frighteningly few hits. One of them was a comment by you at User talk:Wrp103, so I thought maybe you could help contribute to the John Gorka stub I felt compelled to create. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:53, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

W. Mark Felt

Salve!
I nominated W. Mark Felt as a WP:FAC. As you commented on the Deep Throat talk page, I'd appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/W. Mark Felt/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 15:46, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Rfc

James...have you posted the Rfc yet as folks are starting to chime in on the GWB discussion page...--MONGO 20:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.--MONGO 00:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Godwin's law

That's interesting...first person reference..thanks! Hey, check out my photo on my user page...I've got my weight down to 260! Took pic in Grand Teton National Park last month. Didn't want it to show too much detail, but everyone gets the idea that I am human at least. I think.--MONGO 11:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Hi James, I've replied back on my talk page Dan100 (Talk) 14:44, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

food for thought

saw your contribs to democratic underground... do you post on there? I got kicked off recently because I disagreed with this guy TruthIsAll, who really is Our Glorious Leader on DU.com, I hate people who resort to ad hominem attacks within 1 post of good-faith dissention, and I constantly asked him about several aspects about the exit polls that imply the opposite of fraud... within a week I was kicked off. If you ever post on there look up kobeisguilty posts, you'll see what i mean :). The amount of people who simply blindly believe Kerry should have won from the exit polls is simply amazing. I'm all for conspiracy theories and everything, as long as you tell me what you know, how you know it, and where you got your information from. --kizzle 19:27, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

help...

ok how do I change my sentence to be NPOV, since you say it is a has a POV issue. I inlcuded it in the millie collines article (Rwanda Genocide). I don't think it is an opinion, it is most certainly a fact since the invasion did happen...

"It is interesting to note that this same notion of sovereignty never deterred the United States from invading Iraq in 2003."

J. Crocker

3RR

Thanks — I'm glad that you approved. MONGO's comment on my Talk page suggests that he wasn't so keen, I'm afraid. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hmmm....

A wicked king amuses himself by putting 3 prisoners to a test. He takes 3 hats from a box containing 5 hats – 3 red hats and 2 white hats. He puts one hat on each prisoner, leaving the remaining hats in the box. He informs the men of the total number of hats of each color, then says, “I want you men to try to determine the color of the hat on your own head. The first man who does so correctly and can explain his reasoning, will immediately be set free. But if any of you answers incorrectly, you will be executed on the spot.”

The first man looks at the other two and says “ I don’t know”

The second man looks at the hats on the first and third man and finally says “ I don’t know the color of my hat, either.”

The third man is at something of a disadvantage. He is blind. But he is also clever. He thinks for a few seconds and then announces, correctly, the color of this hat.

What color hat is the blind man wearing? How did he know?

--kizzle 05:36, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

quick question

Taking into account your views on including Van Wormer and Frank in this article, what are your opinions on Andrew Sullivan commenting on the Qur'an desecration at Guantanamo Bay? --kizzle June 29, 2005 16:29 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for chiming in at WP:VFD/LLH. -SV|t 5 July 2005 20:46 (UTC)

Wiki Wiffle Bat

The Wiki Wiffle Bat is an award given to those who have shown exceptional skill in the area(s) of logic, rationality, dispute resolution/mediation, and a general attitude that betters Wikipedia as a whole, particularly in the face of flames and general animosity. The Bat itself is intended to represent the furor with which recipients of the award attempt to beat logic into even the thickest of skulls.

I think that your clear thinking on the VFD for Lost Liberty Hotel, which changed my mind and the mind of at least one other user, qualifies. I have a lot of respect for people that can actually do that. Keep up the good work, Dave (talk) July 7, 2005 20:46 (UTC)

"Wikipedia works so much better when people can discuss such questions on their merits, without calling each other "asshole" every five minutes."--No kidding. Dave (talk) July 8, 2005 00:19 (UTC)

Then you don't know James. James is an asshole. That's right, I went there. Just once James, I want you to cut loose and tell me how you really feel and not just spout some well-articulated highly logical parry that in most cases reduces the dispute to a reluctant agreement from your interlocutor. --kizzle July 8, 2005 00:47 (UTC)

LOL! Well said Kizzle (I assume you're speaking tongue-in-cheek). James, re your talk comment, nice of you to say so. I guess Rosa Parks was a good example, if you were able to use it to prove your own point and change my mind and Harry/Dave's :) Tualha 8 July 2005 00:54 (UTC)

Kizzle, why don't you go back to sodomizing your grandmother, and leave my talk page alone? JamesMLane 8 July 2005 01:50 (UTC)

Funny you should say that, I'm staying at my grandmother's house right now leeching off the neighbor's wireless. I'll tell her you said that :) --kizzle July 8, 2005 02:45 (UTC)

This is the funniest thing I've seen all day! Dave (talk) July 8, 2005 01:55 (UTC)

hey asshole, poll you might want to check out --kizzle July 9, 2005 16:14 (UTC)

your comment here would be appreciated :) --kizzle 03:26, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Different Memo/Letter

On the GWB insider trading article here[8], the two quotes "The subsequent SEC investigation ended in 1992 with a memo stating "it appears that Bush did not engage in illegal insider trading," but noted that the memo "must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result"" are from different memos/letters. It's in the cnn link provided in the article. Just wanted to give you a heads up. I didn't know how to word it. -bro 172.169.252.227 07:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that myself when I was editing the GWB article. I fixed it there to make clear it's two different documents. Furthermore, the one that's more favorable to Bush doesn't appear to be an official SEC decision or action, but just a memo to the file by one of the staffers, so that there'll be some record of why they decided not to take enforcement action. (If I were running the SEC, that would be SOP. Even if the alleged wrongdoer is the President's son, somebody might come along later and want to know why no action was pursued. Long after everyone involved has forgotten it or left the SEC, you'd want something in writing that would help you justify the decision.) The letter to Bush's attorney, on the other hand, can be assumed to have been more carefully considered. JamesMLane 08:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was referring to the article here[9].I hadn't even read over the main GWB article in a while. Apologies if you were in the process of fixing that page as well. -bro 172.169.252.227 08:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't in the process of fixing that page. I was in the process of thinking that one of these days I ought to get around to fixing that page. :) If you want to do the honors, feel free. What I did to the main article can be seen in this edit, although upon further consideration I'm not sure that describing the memo to files as a memo "from" the SEC is accurate. JamesMLane 09:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I created the original article, I can copy and paste the exact prose from House of Bush, House of Saud if you want to re-draft it... or if you are near a bookstore it's on page 123. The part about the letter(s) exhonerating Bush was there before I edited however. --kizzle 16:12, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

We shouldn't engage in any copyvio. As bro points out, however, the text gives the impression that the two quotations in that sentence are taken from the same document, but they're not. Also, looking at this page, I notice it says that Bush's sale gave him a "net profit of $848,560". Other sources give $848,000 as the total sale price. It could be that both are correct, if he received the Harken stock for free, but if (as seems more likely) the Harken stock was in exchange for Spectrum 7 stock he owned, then it's misleading. Bush may not have paid cash for the Harken stock. Nevertheless, his Spectrum 7 stock presumably had some value. For income tax purposes, for example, Bush would not have had reportable income for the entire $848,000. Is the "net profit" phrase from the current text accurate? (Maybe we should move this whole thread to the article's talk page.) JamesMLane 16:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to post it on your talk page for you to re-draft, am I allowed to do that simply for reference purposes? As for that passage... Bush "sold 212,140 shares of stock for $848,560". He sold this stock in order to pay for the $500,000 investment into the Texas Rangers, of which he would later personally gain $15 million from. While I think technically speaking it was all profit, as I doubt when he joined the board at Harken they made him pay for his stock options, the phrase "net profit" is arbitrary, I don't care whether it stays in or not. And if you re-draft it, the key point to remember is that an answer from his company's own legal counsel specifically warned him that such an action would constitute "strong evidence that the insider's investment decision was based on the inside information...The insider should be advised not to sell." --kizzle 17:16, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that, for copyright purposes, there's no difference between adding a passage to the article and adding it to a talk page. Either way, from the point of view of the copyright owner, the protected material is being made available to the general public without authorization. In the unlikely event of a DMCA takedown notice, Wikipedia would have to edit it out, and an admin would have to go into the talk page's history and remove infringing material from all the older versions. On the other hand, you can email it to me without any problem. If you can readily do so, I'd find it very interesting. You mention "stock options" -- does the book say that Bush obtained the stock by exercising options? He was a principal in Spectrum 7, which was merged into Harken, so I'd expect that he owned stock in Spectrum 7 and transferred that stock to Harken in exchange for shares of Harken. Of course, he may have added more Harken shares later, through options. For purposes of this article, I think it's simpler for us just to say what the gross price was. JamesMLane 23:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO provides sockpuppet chuckles

Take a gander here. Not sure what he's accusing me of, exactly. From MONGO's paranoid IP address analysis, it looks like the "actual" "Bro" MONGO is having problems with tipped me off on my Talk page. Anyhow, he's sore because I didn't rise to his Gitmo-baiting response in the artificial The Pet Goat controversy.

BTW, I'm currently reading Fortunate Son, I'll try and add substance abuse... substance to the Dubya article as per your request when I finish (or after midterms).

howdy

Hey James. Wolfman re-incarnated here. Don't know whether old Clinton scandals are your cup of tea. But, if they are, User:Agiantman just slapped up a NPOV tag on Kathleen Willey (guess he didn't like my facts). I've also been sparring with him a bit over Bill Clinton (scandals), Mike Espy & Juanita Broaddrick. Anyway, I'm starting to feel pretty competitive, which isn't good since this isn't supposed to be a contest. If you have any interest, you might keep an eye on those pages. I'm taking them off my watchlist for maybe a week to cool off. Last time, I let Anonip frustrate me to the point of leaving & I'm trying to avoid that. I don't so much trust him to make neutral edits in the meantime. He's not as bad as my new namesake, but he ain't good either. Your old pal, and apparently a childish, stubborn Clinton apologist. Derex 02:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, i was thinking it might be worth a link to the other name. mostly just felt like having a new skin. but, i also probably foolishly mentioned enough in my wolman suit to identify who i am in real life. maybe i'm paranoid, but i'd rather that not be the case given my occupation & the number of people who get pissy about bad grades. so, i'll probably just leave it be without making a big secret of it either. i believe kizzle is on the clinton case, so no worries. i know lots of people have your talk on watchlist, so it was almost like a public announcement ;) Derex 16:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

haha, when you didn't respond to me earlier for a couple months, I was going to go to the economics department at school in the fall and ask if anyone knew a teacher who talked a lot about wolves :) --kizzle 16:25, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Derex, you think a lot of people have my talk watchlisted? Well, in that case.... GO, RED SOX! (I figure if I have a soapbox here, I might as well cheer for my team.) JamesMLane 16:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, you live in New York and cheer for the Red Sox? Yeah, you definetely want to stay anonymous :). --kizzle 17:00, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I have no fear. I've worn my Red Sox cap to Yankee Stadium and lived to tell the tale. "My strength is as the strength of ten because my heart is pure." JamesMLane 17:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, you got nothing to fear anyways... Yankee fans are just bandwagon-hoppers, its not hard to be a Yankees fan. Try wearing a Chargers hat to a Raiders game, that is the definition of strength. (I'm a Raider's fan) --kizzle 17:50, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

lucky i knew you before i knew that dirty little secret, or there would be bad blood. i'm still sore about the '03 playoffs (A's fan). but, praise jebus you're at least not a yankee wanker. ..... i had forgotten the enormous amount of time invested in each word of an article like gwb. the talk page is almost longer than moby dick & a lot less entertaining. Derex 05:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Kerry

You might want to have a look at this edit to the article. TDC has made a number of edits of questionable accuracy pushing a right-wing POV to other articles. I've never heard of this incident, but given your familiarity with Kerry's background, I figured you might know about it and could see how accurate this portrayal is. Gamaliel 18:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

taking your name in vain

An anon user is going around "removing porn" from articles like Vagina, Clitoris and Breast and signing your name to the removal. For instance, [10] and [11]. I suppose you pissed someone off; perhaps this will be useful evidence for an RFC/RFAr. Cheers, FreplySpang (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

repeatedly vandalized home-page, faked username to remove "porn," geezus what argument did this guy lose? also, might want to check this out and help re-word or make a stronger argument. --kizzle 19:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to have helped, and tremendously amused that the vandalism ultimately resulted in a better encyclopedia. Joyous (talk) 22:30, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Thanks for your note, James. Evidence of dispute resolution is meant to go up within 48 hours, or the RfC is supposed to be deleted as uncertified. Still, if he has disappeared, then it's probably easier to leave it anyway. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:41, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hi again James, the rules are pretty clear: it all has to be done within 48 hours, and it's the responsibility of the nominators to ensure they have all their ducks in a row. Rhobite posted only one example, and even that I wouldn't call dispute resolution - rather, it was from the initial dispute itself. Plus he posted the RfC just two hours after that diff, so the respondent wouldn't even have had time to reply. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:59, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Rfc Bush

James, I'm done with that place (Bush article)...I will almost surely just do a revert or two a day or less to simple vandalism. I inserted your reluctant version of the passages, minus the sentence on the psychology. If you feel compelled to reinsert it, I understand. Doesn't matter, the work of a few that try to make a decent article, even if it does smack somewhat of their POV (me and you), is probably going to end up a mess in a few days anyway...it's a Wiki...what can I say. The vandalism there is out of control, and I had to make several attempts just get those passages inserted without continuing some other baloney that some vandal inserted. Thank you for your efforts to work towards a consensus...though we have much to disagree on at times, I have a great respect for your commitment and your efforts.--MONGO 08:19, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

[12] --kizzle 18:59, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

James, I believe you never answered my response to your interpretation of the poll results that I posted a link to above. Also, when you get a chance, can you take a look at Bill Clinton and just tell me what you think of the neutrality of the article? Geezus. Sometimes I feel Rex fulfilled his promise to recruit his army of the underworld from freerepublic. And what's the deal with the Pet Goat thing? Wikipedia is going to get very tiring if the same shit (coulter quotes, pet goat) gets rehashed every other month. --kizzle 17:29, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Welcoming new members

You know, welcoming new members isn't something limited to the welcoming comnittee... anyone can do it! :D

Cheers, Hmib 00:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Underground

I don't really know much about the site so I can't evaluate the current version very well, but it looks solid. The anon's version on the other hand was jumping-off-the-page POV, looks like he's blocked for 24 hours and least though, and good riddance. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:05, 2005 July 27 (UTC)

Thanks for the kudo. I am always encouraged when a bunch of editors collaborate to fight vandalism. This united front makes a difference, I think, by showing that the community and wiki concepts both work. I've got DU on my watchlist now so along with you and the others I think we can reasonably hold this vandal at bay without any of us hitting the 3RR. By the way, do you happen to know what the best way is to request a user block? I tried researching it yesterday but could only find a procedure for doing this for classic vandalism. Wasn't sure if what we were dealing with qualified under that category. Tobycat 15:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Kennedy and LvMI Disputes

Thank you for trying to insert some reason and sense in the Ted Kennedy attack dispute and the LvMI dispute. At least in the LvMI case I was able to see some substance to both sides of the dispute, as well as seeing real people on both sides.

The Kennedy dispute is one of two open RfCs concerning disruptive anonymous editors. I see both as illustrating that a capability is needed to protect articles from anonymous edits. DotSix has gone to the extreme of removing portions of the NPOV official policy because he thinks that they are logically incorrect. (I think that he is disrupting Wikipedia to make a philosophical point, although I am not sure what the point it.)

The determination of the right wing to save civilization by uncivil behavior is remarkable. Robert McClenon 11:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The combination of persistence and cowardice of that particular anonymous editor is also remarkable. I would have favored removal of a similar link from a page on Tom DeLay, and I assume that you would have also, even though I think he is everything that the right wing thinks that Ted Kennedy is. Robert McClenon 10:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Authenic Matthew (again)

I recognise that there was no consensus to delete this article – and that is unlikely to change. But I still have grave concerns about it. The author’s insistence in linking it to other Biblical studies articles, is giving the impression of a scholarly theory that simply does not exist I did warn –Ril- that his involvement in the second re-listing was likely to be counterproductive [13] but to no avail. I am left wondering how many of the ‘keep’ votes were influenced by –Ril-‘s antics. But getting this article right is more important that –Ril-‘s behaviour.

Looking at the last vote Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew 21d , 12k, 4m – I note that 4 of the ‘keep votes’ expressed a desire for a renaming. So that would indicate a 29-8 feeling that it was undesirable to have this article at this name. Is there room for an acceptable compromise? I’d like to move it to Possible origins of Matthew’s Gospel and place it the context of the real scholarly debate on Matthew. There would some overlap with both the Gospel of Matthew and Synoptic problem – but that I for one could live with. I could just ‘be bold’ and do this, but it is likely to be reverted, and I’m likely to get abuse, – so I’m looking for some agreement that this has a consensus – preferably from some of those who didn’t vote ‘delete’. Any comments? --Doc (?) 17:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss at Talk:Authentic Matthew#-a compromise?

Insults, etc.

James, inviting you to contribute to this discussion of insults, etc. of public figures in the Village Pump patsw 01:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy Poll

Please give your vote on the talk page.[14]Voice of All(MTG) 03:01, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Primary candidates VFD

Many of the candidates for the June 14, 2005, congressional primary have been proposed for deletion. I am writing those who worked on election articles to request that they offer their votes against the proposal. The VFD's can be found starting at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_8#Peter_Fossett. It is my view that we ought to provide a complete record of the election and my deleting so called "minor" candidates we do a disservice to them and the historical record. Please vote against all these proposals.PedanticallySpeaking 14:54, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Wal-Mart criticism split

I'm attempting to establish an solid consensus on whether or not to split Wal-Mart and Criticism of into separate articles. See the vote at Talk:Wal-Mart. Feco 20:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Kennedy

Wow, that was quick!:) Well, since the event feels out of place for now(the dates jump ahead quite a bit), I like to follow the 1RR instead of 3RR, and there is a "see also," and Teddy didn't actually commit anything nor was he on trial, I don't care to much to put it back in. I just though that when people testify in high-publicity trials, it becomes biography material just because of its importance. Also, this is debate is getting really old(and this is apparently the second round) and I want to move on. Au Revoir.Voice of All(MTG) 03:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)