User talk:JamesMLane/Archive4

Stolen Honor -- again

You may want to keep an eye on Stolen Honor. TDC has been making the same old edits as Rex used to, claiming that because Sherwood has an article of his own, any information about Sherwood in the SH article is "irrelevant", blahdy blahdy bloo. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

He's a fun one. --kizzle 04:17, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court article is up as a Featured Article Candidate Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States here, and I thought you'd want to look it over before it goes through. It looks pretty good to me, but I'm not a lawyer. Dave (talk) 16:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Avalon Hill

I'm glad you think the article on Avalon Hill is in good shape. If you look at the beginning of the talk page, you'll see some discussion about the introduction of the hexagonal grid. Were you around at AH way back then? or did you pick up any information on the subject from other employees' reminiscing? By the way, let me point out one of the tips Alphax gave you (no one expects you to pick up all of our Wikiways immediately): You can sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (Mike Selinker 17:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)). It's easier than typing "Mike", and it creates an automatic link to your user page, plus a time stamp, which is often helpful in keeping track of a discussion JamesMLane 08:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. But, I'm 37. For me to have been around when Avalon Hill supposedly introduced the honeycomb puts me at, I dunno, -12 years old. We didn't have a lot of old timers around when I was there in 2001-2003. Mike Selinker 17:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

(this section was moved here from your talk page by Dave (talk) 18:16, August 12, 2005 (UTC))

Palm Beach reversions by agiantman

I went away for a while(off to Colombus) and came back, noticing that all the Palm beach stuff was back. Now, I said I didn't mind a quick sentece, but this has all of the schizophrenic implications again. Should I just revert it out or will that just cause a revert war? Any suggestions from a lawyer?:)Voice of All(MTG) 03:54, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

What the heck is going on there? It seems like several anons and Agiantman keep reverting POV anti-Kennedy material into the article. Can somebody have this guy's IP checked? Are the anons one man using AOL or several sockpuppets? This is just getting ridiculous. The "waitress sandwich" section is just garbage.Voice of All(MTG) 03:12, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I think that the newest vote is flawed due to sockpuppetry(even though the POV anons are STILL LOSING). They all signed on the "for" column so quickly, and all the anon IPs are suspicious. I like how he claims that democrats don't play fair with elections :). Funny...but also sad....Voice of All(MTG) 06:57, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Silverback

As proof that sometimes the process of civility and reason works even with editors who had previously seemed unreasonable, I note that Silverback reverted to a JamesMLane version. Sometimes civility works. In any case, one cannot restore civilization by uncivilized behavior. Robert McClenon 23:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Agiantman

I think that I will have to write an RfC against User:Agiantman for uncivility. Also, the quickpoll on the Palm Beach Rape trial has now been trashed by stuffing it with a previous different survey. Robert McClenon 11:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I will more or less take your advice. I will begin writing the RfC, but will wait to post it. Robert McClenon 15:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

You say that you do not share my apparent optimism that reasoning with him with help. I am not optimistic, but I have to try to be reasonable and civil. Robert McClenon 19:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Rosemary Kennedy

Article watchlisted as requested. Robert McClenon 17:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

New Wikiproject Las Vegas

I have noted your interest in Las Vegas, Nevada and surrounding area. I extend the offer to join us on the Wikiproject Las Vegas. …Guy M… ^(soapbox) 13:52, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Something you might be very interested in

n:2004_Bush_campaign_chairman_pleads_guilty_to_election_fraud,_conspiracy

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/08/10/national/w231835D50.DTL

Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 00:32, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Warning

I have deleted your personal attack on my talk page. Please refrain from leaving any future messages for me as I will consider it harrassment. I remind you of the wiki policy on Civility.--Agiantman 00:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

James, I feel ya buddy. --kizzle 01:30, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

The message that user:JamesMLane left for Agiantman was extremely civil. Deleting warnings about bad behavior is, by itself, evidence of bad faith. -Willmcw 01:44, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, kizzle and Willmcw. I will for the most part refrain from attempting to tell Agiantman anything, because the effort seems to be a waste of time. Of course, there could be occasions when I would want to leave him a message, in which case I will; he gets no peremptory challenges to people who can edit his talk page. JamesMLane 07:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Precisely!

You voted exactly as I thought you would! James, you help me define where the center is and I thank you for that!--MONGO 09:32, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

this one of course--MONGO 09:46, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ya, should have let you know here. That place was a hell hole for awhile...I longed for a little rumble back in the Georgie page just for a wikibreak! Truthfully, I signed up on a whim thinking it was more of a discussion thing being not so familiar about some of the various Wiki stuff out there but it has brought up some interesting issues that you may understand better than I. Certain images such as those in the discussion associated with the arguments are, er, descriptive. Jimbo Wales stated that he doesn't want Wikipedia to have to keep age of consent, etc on these pictures and the people in them on file anywhere. I know that in the U.S., every porn distributor, adult book peddler et al must have records on file...how does Wikipedia protect itself from a potential legal attack from Jerry Falwell? Does the lingo...free encyclopedia, open to all, and the disclaimer that Wikipedia is not censored for minors provide ample protection?--MONGO 10:30, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

That's what I figured...that there was little chance of Wikipedia being in any real danger of being shut down or found in violation. My concern is that some "religious right" group might want to go after Wikipedia legally and break the bank so to speak...but probably not a real threat either. Thanks for the info anyhoo.--MONGO 11:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

That was illuminating and I do appreciate it. I don't know why, but for some odd reason, I want Wikipedia to succeed. One comment in that awful Vfd cast a spell over me...paraphrased: College professors and educators DO NOT recommend Wikipedia as a reference point...instead that it is just a biased blog. That tweaked me because I would like to think that almost all the articles I have seen are well referenced, oftentimes complex and well written...even the Bush article is excellent in it's coverage. It would be nice to have this enterprise be the reference point of the web...even now, two of my articles come up as the first link when you do a google search...probably because they are of obscure points of interest I suppose and there isn't much out there to begin with. Anyhoo...your thoughts are appreciated...thanks.--MONGO 08:35, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Conflation ?

Kizzle and Gamaliel have an interesting point. Maybe Agiantman is Rex.

What Agiantman tried to conflate two editors, I remembered your description of being suspicious of parapsychology and quackery. In my father's side of the family, we think that James McClenon is a quack. At the same time, he is our quack, and he should not be insulted without evidence. (As you have probably inferred by now, he accidentally mentioned an eccentric Robert McClenon 08:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Please use user pages for personal discussion and let the article talk pages serve their purpose as a place to discuss article edits. In the future, I also ask that you refrain from personal attacks in your discussion. This really serves no one to engage in incivility. - Sleepnomore 21:50, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

If James personally attacked someone, it would be a first, as I've never seen him do it yet in the year that I've known him. --kizzle 22:05, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

No, not at all. I'm sure he's been very kind. This wasn't meant to call his character into question whatsoever. I'm sure he's glad he has friends like you to come to his aide however. :) - Sleepnomore 02:15, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, but I think his track record alone is enough :). --kizzle 02:58, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have also been a victim of POV warrior User:JamesLLane's personal attacks. For documentation of POV warrior Kizzle's personal attacks, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Agiantman&action=edit&section=11] :) --Agiantman 03:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I also endorse people to follow Agiantman's link. --kizzle 03:49, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• I am doing my best to not get caught up in this same he-said, she-said that is going on in the page. I'm reverting the talk page because the RfC's are nothing more than personal attacks, for the most part. This is acceptable under WP:RPA and specifically addresses the issue of no personal attacks . I'll ask again that you work with this system and allow the page to discuss the article, not the users involved. Thanks in advance for your help in this matter as I know it become a politically heated battle. - Sleepnomore 07:12, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Most of those who have reverted have since agreed on their talk pages to let these items be removed. The only hold out (For the time) appears to be you. I'm just asking that you give this a chance. The distraction is only a distraction if you let it be one. Continued reverts to include personal attacks provide that catalyst. I would sincerely appreciate your helping to tone this down. The people will still be accountable as the edit history shows what they have said. Obviously, that history remains no matter what. - Sleepnomore 07:49, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

After your statement above (at 7:49 UTC) alleging that I was the lone holdout, two other users reverted to the version I favored. I could probably assemble more evidence by going to users' talk pages, but I really don't want to. I'm thoroughly sick of this derivative edit war. JamesMLane 09:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule

I am aware of the Three Revert Rule, but I'm also aware that I'm not violating it. The 3RR page states: This policy does not apply to self-reverts or correction of [[Wikipedia:Vandalism | simple vandalism.]. When you look at the description of simple vandalims the following is one such description: ;Changing people's comments: editing signed comments by another user to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself) In general personal attacks are not allowed. By continuing to revert the page, it is the samething as if you had added the attacks yourself. I have addressed the issues that have been added to the page but I've done so where the discussion belongs -- on user talk pages. I ask once again that you follow this simple rule yourself in the future. Its not that difficult to let go of this anger is it? Its not a matter of anything other than a need to put all this behind us as far as the article goes. You can keep your personal hatred and RfC's all you want, but please don't keep reverting and dragging new users into this. - Sleepnomore 08:21, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

If anyone had bothered to write you up for 3RR violation, one or ore admins would have had to consider the argument you make. My personal opinion is that most Wikipedia admins, looking at your specific edits, would conclude that you had violated 3RR. I'm gad to see, however, that no one tried to have you blocked, so the point is moot. I'm completely in agreement with letting go of my anger. In fact, I'll go one better and say that we should let go of this derivative edit war entirely. JamesMLane 09:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I wrote her up. The continued lying showed lack of good faith.--Silverback 09:28, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

And your continued misrepresentation of what I was doing serves absolutely no purpose. This certainly was in better faith than continually adding personal attacks to a page that is already rife with it. Your 3RR writeup is fine. I think the history on this subject will speak for itself. In the mean time, I ask you both to reconsider the need to keep this personal discussion and infighting on an article talk page. That is not what wikipedia is for. Your User RfC's can still use the edit history of the talk page to make your points, but by cleaninng up the talk page itself, we free new users from the need to shuffle through needless argumentative talk in order to discuss making the article better. - Sleepnomore 16:55, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

User_talk:4.22.151.195

My apoligies, James, I had already blocked him and was leaving a test5 message when you placed another warning, sorry. Func( t, c, @, ) 17:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Felix Rodriguez

Looks like TDC inserted the exact same paragraph here he tried to stick into John Kerry back in July. Will you have a look? I'm not familiar enough with the incident to get into it with him at this point. Gamaliel 19:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:RD/H

Thanks for your response about Bernard Kerik's nomination. That subject came to mind during the current dismal response to the New Orleans disaster in that a patronage nomination was even considered appropriate. :-( hydnjo talk 19:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Ruth Riley, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Template box editing

You edited the template box on Ruth Riley by adding a pipe near the end. I'm not familiar with how these boxes work. When I created the article, I just copied the Naismith Award box from the Lisa Leslie article. Comparing the Riley page as it's displayed before and after your edit, I don't see any difference. Can you explain to me what difference the pipe makes, for my future reference?

By the way, I noticed that you also eliminated the skipped lines after the headings. I always include them, because it doesn't affect the display and (to my eye) it makes later editing easier, but obviously it's no big deal. Thanks for any help you can give about the template format. JamesMLane 06:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for your interest. Adding the pipe at the end wouldn't have made any difference. The bigger difference was made on the Template:Naismith Award Winners Women. If you can compare the differences on the history section, there was a major error on the table syntax: link. Take a look, and you'll see what was wrong. I removed the lines because most of the articles are done that way. If you want to add them back, feel free to do so. Thank you, -- WB 23:27, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Good faith?

To the person writing as “James M Lane” - That doesn't quite count as "assuming good faith", but it is funny. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:22, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the Lively DU discussion

I appreciate our discussion of my edits I attempted to add to the DU entry. As a fellow attorney I am sure you appreciate differences of opinion which are not personal in nature. That was my thinking re: DU. Considering your comments, I am wondering how those banned DU members who are not to the politically left and right may be addressed in this entry. I do not believe omitting them makes the DU entry more accurate.

If DU were to disappear tomorrow, it would be a disservice to those progressives and democrats who still frequent that site and participate there. However, these administrative policies will eventually be reported in the MSM and the credibility of everyone participating there will be impaired.

Other than the DU post I referred to which evidently got my posting privileges suspended, it would appear that I am the typical DU target member. Oh well, I guess 300 non-critical posts are of no value when one critical post is weighed against you.

Some of my edits at Wikipedia may take time to meet all the rules and standards, but as I become more familiar with the format I hope to bring something positive to this site. As always, I am open to suggestions. ThanksJFKer 16:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Tort Reform Article

I am having some issues with an editor that wants to retain a one sided article on Tort Reform. I thought you might want to check it out.

Whitfield Larrabee 19:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

We still need help on this article. It is a long, tedious rant. I have changed part of it, and both sides put POV tags on it.

Mostly, it is still a tirade. MollyBloom 04:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Cruel, cruel JamesMLane

Do I talk about you that way? No, I am decent and kind and respectful. And all I ask is for a little love and a little respect in return (and maybe a pat on the head now and then). And this is how you insult me. Well, I can do better than you mister! I'm out of here! You won't have old Rush to kick around anymore. ... and then you'll be sorry. !!!! Rush Limbaugh 00:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

If you created that username just to be able to cry personal attack against James, you are a very sad sad man. --kizzle 23:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

And if he picked it because that's really his name, then he's an even sadder man. JamesMLane 02:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and yet more with the personal attacks. Why am I not surprised? "Not impartial" am I? "Sad" am I? You spiteful, pitiful, subversive little liberals. I hope that you and Kizzle are happy together -- Hah, not! Just you wait Kizzle, someday JamesMLane will turn on you too. Then your world will crumble just like mine, and your only solace will be in the arms of Ann Coulter, that tramp. RushLimbaugh 16:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you for real? --kizzle 21:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

National Enquirer

Yep...If this current state of affairs isn't enough to drive George W Bush back to the bottle, then maybe he isn't suffering from being a dry drunk:)! But serious, the more I look at Bush and the more I listen to him, the more I think he closely resembles Alfred E. Neuman See for yourself!

"George Bush says...gimme a drink!

--MONGO 05:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, in addition to Bushisms we now have Neumanisms...amazing parallels I might say myself.

Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my userpage...also, I noticed that the comparison of Mr. Neuman and Mr. Bush is unfair to Mr. Neuman...his quotes make more sense than Bush's by a long-shot!--MONGO 07:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Be afraid...be very afraid: "I'm the master of low expectations." Bush aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003

Hey James... hate to be a wet blanket but you need to remove the pic of the honorable Alfred E. Neuman Jr. - it's copyright and not suitable for user pages. (See the notice at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Alfred.jpg) --Singkong2005 13:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Usually I don't censor my talk page, but copyvio is a necessary exception. Singkong2005 raises a valid point. Accordingly, I'm removing Image:Alfred.jpg, which MONGO included in his comment in this section. JamesMLane 23:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Requested

Per community consensus, Arbitration has been requested against BigDaddy777. Please add any details or comments you feel are appropriate. Mr. Tibbs 03:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777 has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777/Evidence Fred Bauder 15:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

wow

I know you're trying to stay out of all this mess, but you gotta check this out: User_talk:BigDaddy777#The_Wikipedia_That_Was. And archive your page you lazy bastard! --kizzle 20:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

I know you've been asked before, but would you object to being nominated for adminship? Let me know, you definitely deserve it. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• I agree wholeheartedly...if for no other reason then as a reward for your civility, your intelligence and for patience, especially when dealing with someone like me!--MONGO 09:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

slime

I understand that you are trying to stay out of the BigDaddy slimepit. But, in case you are not monitoring Karl Rove, I thought I should bring this to your attention. BD essentially accuses you of anti-Semitism, "Jew-baiting" in particular.[1] Regards, Derex @ 17:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if this discussion might be relevant to the page? Think about it ... Texas, same style, same tricks, & I bet old Karl's getting real irritable right about now. Derex @ 21:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

JamesMLane wrote: "Oh, and, kizzle, next week's cabal meeting has been postponed because of Yom Kippur."

--JamesMLane 09:29, 7 October 2005

Every man deserves an opportunity to defend himself. You suggested it was a joke. What's the punch line? Thanks! Big Daddy 22:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Hallelujah. --kizzle 00:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

the final straw for you guys was that anti-Semetic Jew baiting slur from JamesMLane. Wait till the donors find out this pure bigotry was spewed by one of the MOST RESPECTED liberals in here

You did in one sentence what I couldn't do in like 10 pages of arguments. I bet you think you're cool now. And thanks for telling everyone I didn't have a secret decoder ring, I told you to keep it a secret. Geezus, I can't get any cabal love. --kizzle 04:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Harriet Miers

I have a belief that the nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court is being villianized by the far right in an effort to ensure her nomination will succeed. We all know that every Republican will vote for her...and she is obviously a reborn Christian which jeopardizes Roe v Wade...so what other reasons could the far right have to complain? I think it is a big smokescreen.--MONGO 09:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Stop controlling the DU page with an iron fist

Are you trying to deny that the democratic underground moderators ban and censor any form of dissent to their site and anyone with opposing opinions? since your "hostile to anything right wing" and probably post at the DU you are never going to be neutral and objective on that page are you? Also please tell me what was wrong with the following Its also worth noting that the moderators at the Democratic Underground are always waiting to ban and silence any dissenters and anyone with a differing opinion, therefore contradicting their "progressive ideals"

James, he's got a point. I'm not even bitter in a Rexian or now BigDaddian sense, but the mods there have a hair trigger on their banning capability. I'm not familiar at all with the Wiki article however, or what you guys are disagreeing about, and I could see problems including a claim like this in the official article without it being sourced, but seriously, those guys can't even stand healthy debate. --kizzle 03:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's striking that kizzle, who hasn't even read my comments, understands the issue better than the anon (presumably JFKer) who keeps trying to add his or her personal opinions to the article. I never said that the page must be kept free of criticism of DU. In fact, several times I've restored the link to a right-wing anti-DU site. Rather, the issue is precisely, as kizzle says, "including a claim like this .. . without it being sourced". I keep citing Wikipedia:Verifiability but the message apparently doesn't get through. (Scan Talk:Democratic Underground for the word "Verifiability" to find the discussion.)

The article currently quotes the DU rules, which make clear that DU is not a site for unfettered free speech. That much is verifiable. An assertion that banning occurs under other circumstances couldn't be included in the article unless it were attributed to a named source, with a citation. Furthermore, a statement that DU's moderators are "contradicting their 'progressive ideals'" (a quotation from the anon's latest edit to the article) is pure POV. JamesMLane 03:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

That's what I figured the problem was. Anon, listen to James, you need to cite such a claim that you talk about... Wikipedia:Verifiability is an essential guideline to read when working on political pages. I even agree with you wholeheartedly, but you still gotta cite, cite, cite. --kizzle 07:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

A couple more things. I just read the whole discussion on the DU talk page. First, yes, JFKer, you are bitter about being kicked off DU. If you don't believe so, then you're living in denial. Second, I have very little patience for people who tout their accomplishments to "qualify you to have an opinion and to express it within the framework of Wikipedia". Does the fact that you are a "practicing attorney, former editor and reporter of newspapers and publications, was and continue to be a member of DU with approximately 300 posts (prior to having my posting privileges suspended recently), and have been active in promoting progressive and democratic ideals as a member of the Democratic Party" somehow make your argument stronger? Does this make your argument better than mine simply because I'm 23 and finishing up my undergrad? James is also an attorney, but he doesn't qualify his arguments by showing off his accomplishments in life, he merely puts forward what he believes and why he believes it. Read up on policy, familiarize yourself with Wikipedia standards first, and stick to the argument at hand. You might want to try and start editing on non-political pages first in order to get familiar with the conventions of dialog here. Welcome to Wikipedia. --kizzle 21:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeesh. From recent discussions on GWB and other pages, I think we need to come up with a boilerplate response that you and i can use in discussion:

"While your proposal to include unsourced opinion into the article is intriguing, you need to provide notable, verifiable sources to substantiate such a claim, as per Wikipedia:Verifiability, an important document you might want to read in the near future."

--kizzle 17:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Kennedy Anonymous Editors

In case you did not have the RfAr page watchlisted, the ArbCom has accepted arbitration against the 24. Kennedy anonymous editor and socks. Robert McClenon 01:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Michael Bloomberg

Do you really endorse the idea that an editor can just keep deleting accomplishments and endorsements until hypothetical new editors arrive adding anti-Bloomberg material? patsw 03:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Um, I thought my comment was precisely the opposite. If there's a lot of positive material about the subject, with a resulting imbalance, the imbalance should be corrected by the addition of whatever's missing, rather than by deleting information. Of course, what I'm opposing is the deletion of encyclopedically valid information. Puffery about Bloomberg's "strong leadership" and his "selflessly accepting" only a token salary doesn't belong in the article. JamesMLane 05:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I made it!!

According to Rex071404, at User_talk:Rex071404/Liberal_Editors_Cabal, I've made it into the Liberal Editors Cabal for drunk reverting Mongo with an "insulting edit summary"! I didn't realize the requirements were so low, but I'm still happy to be a member. Thanks for Mongo's part in helping me get into this exclusive group :) I'd like to give a shoutout to the rest of the cabal, Szyslak, JamesMLane, Gamaliel, Merovingian, Raul654, and of course, Neutrality. --kizzle 23:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully i'll get in there next. ;-) I might open the Rfar on Rex before you do, there seems to be a swarm of right wing wackos(before the arbcom that is) on there lately. However, things with Mongo cleared up, we buried the hatchet and he even voted for me on my adminship a few weeks ago! Even though we disagree, it's good to get the quibbling out of the way and focus on what's positive if you can. Karmafist 15:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

tnx

tnx 4 th hds up Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 03:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

Please investigate and comment on the talk page about multiple changes to the Conspiracy theory article made in the last week or so [2]. In my interpretation, clarity has been reduced and info on the mechanics of how "conspiracy theory" may bias the presentation of a subject has been downplayed or removed. zen master T 19:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

New York Meetup

We should organize a get-together for Wikipedians in New York City. (Or is there one already?) Uncle Ed 18:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Killian documents

James, I doubt we'll ever agree about politics. Ever. Frankly, your politics give me a headache, but imagine my views would do the same to you. I do think it is possible for intelligent people to disagree about these things, though, as I have many close friends who are staunch Democrats, loathe Bush, etc. I'm not sure from what I've gleaned about you that you would say the same about those with Rightward views, but maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, despite this I'm perenially optimistic we can continue to edit based on NPOV and I do appreciate your willingness to try to be inclusive of views that disagree with yours for that reason. About Killian, I agree with you more than Rex, we should include Hinchey and McAuliffe's accusations, but also include the absence of evidence. The reason for this long note is actually that I wanted to be sure you weren't suggesting that someone is notable by virtue of being elected to Congress. I have too much respect for your intellect to believe you subscribe to this argument from authority - we both know that being elected to Congress takes votes and money, and doesn't necessarily confer anything other than a respectable office to hold - the view that Rove masterminded the Killian thing is notable coming from the DNC Chair and from a Congressman not because their jobs give them more authority, but because two people in such prominent jobs could make such an accusation with nothing but air to back it up. Do you disagree? Cheers, Kaisershatner 00:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I've requested your input on the Talk page there. Many thanks, Kaisershatner 14:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I would appreciate your viewpoint again, about the introduction, on Talk:Killian documents as I must acknowledge my edits are perceived by some to have a right-of-center slant. Sincerely, Kaisershatner 14:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I might have known. Guess we do have some things in common other than an interest in politics. Best for the new year. Kaisershatner 17:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your continued input on this article. Again, although we disagree on ideology, I generally have found your edits to be judiciously NPOV. I hope my own will be seen similarly from your perspective. Either way, I would love to hear your thoughts on the talk page w/r/t my recent splitting, as it has raised some objections. Kaisershatner 14:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No Original Research

Please got to Talk:John Kerry and read this edit in context there. Your comments there about this issue would be appreciated. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 01:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

ArbComm

James, I've had enough of your obstructionism at John Kerry. I am seriously thinking of taking you to ArbComm. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 10:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The ArbCom frequently rejects complaints on the basis that other measures, such as mediation, should be tried first. If you begin a proceeding against me, you should tell the ArbCom that you believe mediation would be fruitless. I will thereupon advise the ArbCom that I also believe mediation would be fruitless. JamesMLane 10:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. So then how is sharing my thoughts, a "threat"? Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94}

JamesMLane for admin

I have created this Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JamesMLane, but and not sure if I've posted it right.

Please look. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 08:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

your input requested

See Talk:John_Kerry#Kate_.2F_Rex_dailog.2C_re:_edits

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 08:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

dressing aka bandage ... it's used in the sick call report Derex @ 02:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

god help me, i couldn't stop. i debated rex for an hour on his talk page about this. maddening. Derex @ 03:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Dressing is no more "aka bandage" than injury is to wound (less so even) as Dressing and Bandaging are definately 2 discrete steps. I've shown gammy a link to this, but he refuses. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 04:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777 case →Raul654 18:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Hello again. I see that you online at the moment, so if you have time, could you please take a look at Talk:History of the United States (1988-present)? I'm dealing with a really tendentious POV-pusher who is insisting that it is "obvious" that Samuel P. Huntington is "highly critical" of U.S. foreign policy, just as William Blum. (Quite an odd pairing!) I have a lot of experience with him, and he tends to ignore my comments while repeating himself and continuing reversions. So perhaps he might be more reasonable with feedback with some other users. 172 | Talk 08:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. You guys seem to have the TPP (great acronym, btw!) mostly under control on the Kerry article. (I can't believe he's back on that article more than a year after the election. There seems to be a time warp on Wikipedia.) So I'll go ahead and add income tax to my watchlist. 172 | Talk 09:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't have to repeat myself if you'd give a straight answer the first time. CJK 15:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:John Kerry

Please read this. Thank you.

Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 20:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

John Kerry

Please see Talk:John Kerry for a way to end debate. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Inflation

Could you look out after the inflation article, I just made a huge roll back to get rid of a vast array of povcruft that had accumulated in the last month - a gold bug got loose on the page and started sermonizing about the errors of modern economic theory in not going back to gold, and there was a disorganization of the page by another editor who was writing personal essaylets. Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 14:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Research in ireland

Hi, I've re-written this article and done a Move to Expertise Ireland as per Isotope23. I'm now notifying Delete voters accordingly. Would you mind having another look and seeing if you think it's keepable at this stage? FWIW, I was involved in setting up the data feed from one of the Irish Universities to this site. Dlyons493 Talk 16:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex071404

This has been going on quite long enough. I've opened an arbcom case, and as you are party to this conflict, could you go make a statement there? I think Rex really needs to be dealt with. Being a third party myself, I'm not sure if I got every one, but I'm going to alert Mr. Tibbs, Kizzle, Derex, Jtdirl, and Woohookitty as well. I'd appreciate if you could alert anyone I've missed. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 06:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I started to do one of the statements but frankly, kizzle and jtdirl have been involved in this far longer than me. James M Lane too. If you guys need help, let me know, ok? --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

james

get the f on irc now. --kizzle 09:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Note about Rex071404's arbitration case

Hi, James. Sorry for not responding more quickly, but thank you for dropping a note on my talk page regarding Rex071404's lastest RFAr. I am happy to contribute anything specific that may help make the case (e.g. a log of the IRC chat with Rex and User:Kizzle?), but it looks like the statements already made cover the bases pretty well. Good luck with it, in any case. At least for the time being, things have calmed down (relatively speaking) at John Kerry! —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex071404's arby case has been accepted

Place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404_4/Evidence. The general arby page for him is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404_4. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Rfc

We may need to do a request for comment and solicit more opinions on this issue.--MONGO 21:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Poker players

James, please take a look at the Category:Poker players talk page and see if you have an opinion on the question I posted there. Thanks!--Mike Selinker 19:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Important AfD

Hi. If you have time please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators. I'm a bit worried that the main protagonist for the keep side is threatening to reverse the long-established consensus against creating historical categorization schemes on Wikipedia based on editors' original research. If you are interested, arguments against generating such a list have been stated and restated over the course of several years at Talk:List of dictators. Thanks. 172 20:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Just a heads up

Semi-protection is getting a serious run-through at Wikipedia_talk:Semi-protection_policy... you might want to contribute your two cents, as I always find your opinion annoyingly more correct than mine. --kizzle 06:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The Walking Game

I did not appreciate you "cry me a river" comment on the walking page discussion board. After such rude and heartless comments it did not surprise me that you describe yourself as "Hostile to the right wing". Commie.

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 4 case. Raul654 20:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)