User talk:JamesMLane

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

Archives: Archives tables of contents, Archive1, Archive2, Archive3, Archive4, Archive5, Archive6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here (and also, if possible, here?)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 05:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The controversy over an Obama–Ayers connection arose during the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign of the significance and details of Presidential candidate Barack Obama's contacts with his constituent Bill Ayers, a former leader of the Weather Underground Organization who later became a professor of national reputation at the University of Illinois at Chicago and a "very respected and prominent" member of local society."^[1] Obama served on two nonprofit boards with Ayers and lived near him, and both Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn had hosted a small campaign meeting for Obama at their home.^[2] The matter was covered by news organizations and brought up by the campaign of competing candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton in February 2008, revisited during a debate between Clinton and Obama in April 2008, then subsequently picked up by Republican presidential candidate John McCain as an issue in the general election campaign. Obama condemned Ayers' past through a spokesman,^[3] and indicated he does not have a close association with Ayers.^[2]

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

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

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

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

Please take a look. Your opinion would be appreciated at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. Thanks! -- Noroton (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for what you did here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal&diff=237857474&oldid=237854079

Your approach is much better than what I put in there. I was mostly motivated by an objection to what was there earlier: a statement that Wooten was "disciplined … for making a death threat." This was incorrect, since Grimes' letter doesn't even mention the alleged threat. Anyway, thanks for your helpful edit. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYIFerrylodge (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we can discuss the Stambaugh matter a little bit before you reinsert stuff.Talk:Sarah Palin#NRAFerrylodge (talk) 06:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a message sent to a number of editors, and following WP:CANVASS requirements: Please take another look at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC and consider new information added near the top of the article and several new proposals at the bottom. If you haven't looked at the RfC in some time, you may find reason in the new information and new proposals to rethink the matter. -- Noroton (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikis Take Manhattan Next: Saturday September 27 This box: view • talk • edit

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Spring 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
• Commons:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Gallery (our cool gallery)

WINNINGS? Prizes include a dinner for three with Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, September 27th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's West Village office. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

• Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project

349 W. 12th St. #3

Between Greenwich & Washington Streets

By the 14th St./8th Ave. ACE/L stop

FOR UPDATES

Check out:

• Wikis Take Manhattan main website

This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always look forward to your inclusions to Talk:Sarah Palin. In your discussion w/fReid, in a plain-spoken manner, you encapsolate what is happening there. Some editors are more perceptive than most and, additionally, they can vocalize their perception clearly. Thank you for clearing my mind. It seems that the Talk has drifted to specifics and minutiae so I'm gonna busy myself elsewhere. But, I will watch for your inclusions with an apt manner. Until the debates begin, editors at Sarah will just be dancing around the Maypole. However, feel free to "wake me up" if an issue requiring non-partison support arises. Thanks again.--Buster7 (talk) 06:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, After taking into consideration the feedback from other editors regarding the Carson City image at Sarah Palin (I agree with your suggestion for a tighter crop), I have created a new version with the intent of pleasing those who have contributed to the discussions. The quality of the image has been significantly improved. I would appreciate your opinion here: Talk:Sarah Palin#Pic. Thanks, IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikis Take Manhattan has been rescheduled for next Saturday, October 4, due to the rain predicted for this weekend.. I hope you can make it to the new time, and bring a friend (or two)!--Pharos (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The more I read what I wrote, the more I regretted my tone. My frustration built with every detail I learned about this Stambaugh character, and I saw your gun issue as a red herring. Personally, had he been my subordinate, I'd have canned him two weeks into my tenure. Regardless, you're entitled to your opinion, and I shouldn't be so adamant to force my own on you. Truce? Fcreid (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't think you have anything to apologize for. We had a difference of opinion. You expressed your view but you didn't call me an idiot or anything.

I practice law in New York City. I have a pretty thick skin.  :) JamesMLane t c 01:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad, because one never knows when he'll need a good lawyer!  :) Fcreid (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing is getting extremely frustrating. I really appreciate your support for having both sides represented on the bridge and not just the pro-bridge arguments.

May I ask you to revert Hobartimus' edit which he still refuses to defend on the talk page more than an hour after I called him on it? Unfortunately, I've found you usually have to revert back before Hobartimus will come to the talk page to join in discussions about his own edits. He's still online commenting on my talk page and complaining about my "personal attack" here but I doubt he'll get into discussions of substance as long as his mass deletions remain.GreekParadise (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. Thanks for watching the article closely enough to flag this latest incident. JamesMLane t c 15:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Addendum: There was another such edit re the email hack, which I'll now address. JamesMLane t c 15:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading your comment on "Obama is evil" argument and "FBI investigation of a fairly minor incident" I feel that you should refrain from editing the talk page or the article. I know you will probably not do so but my opinion is that you feel extremely strongly about Obama (I can't read your Obama is evil comment any other way) and that can be a problem when evaluating the actions of your fellow editors. Hobartimus (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether an editor is biased but whether an edit is biased. You and I have divergent edits here -- you inserted into the Palin bio material that relates only very tangentially to Palin but that seeks to cast a bad light on a Democratic politician from Tennessee, and I removed that addition. I would be happy for our respective edits to be evaluated by any fair-minded Wikipedian.

By the way, my political bias is disclosed on my user page. What is yours? Do you feel extremely strongly about Obama, or for that matter about Palin? or do you believe yourself to be unbiased on these subjects? Wikipedia allows editing by biased editors, so you're not required to answer; I'm just curious. JamesMLane t c 17:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was truly shocked. I wonder if it was some deep seated "feeling" that McCain has that just bubbled to the surface. The climate is changing...[1]... I pray for the best. Both McMain and Palin are obligated to stop this "mob response" before it localizes in one lone psycho. When Obama announced, all American's "thought" the same fear. It was too tragic to voice. (It still is) WHen does it deserve mention in Palin's article? If the link doesnt work...google "kill him". second or third page..Wasington Post article is mentioned at www.nytimes.com...--Buster7 (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palin didn't say "That one" so it certainly doesn't belong on her page. At this point, I think what's appropriate for her bio is the overall observation that she's stepping up the negative campaigning, and specifically the personal attacks on Obama. The details belong in the McCain campaign article. That's also the place for reporting about the unseemly conduct at the campaign rallies. Even if the words are coming out of Palin's mouth, there's no doubt that it's part of the overall campaign. (I just received an email that John Kerry sent to his mailing list, in which he writes, "McCain allows his running mate to make outrageous charges that only a few years ago would have disqualified someone from serious consideration for national office." He points the finger where it belongs -- McCain, not Palin.)

Of course, even to put something in the McCain campaign article, we need a published observation, such as from Kerry if he's been quoted somewhere verifiable. Your link doesn't work for me. Tell me who wrote the piece and I can find it on the Times site. JamesMLane t c 21:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasington Post site...Dana Milbank...10/05 or 10/06...--Buster7 (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dickinson and Rolling Stone constitute a perfectly respectable source despite not being to the extreme right of the political spectrum. And your desire for an accurate article is admirable and totally in line with WP core policy. But I fear you're wasting your time. As you know, your opponents there tirelessly pass all prospective McCain material through a political filter to prevent informed judgment by the article's readers. Old hands at the filibuster, they will simply parade one bogus argument after another to keep the material bouncing around in Talk and prevent it getting into the article. Ultimately, when this becomes just too obvious, they will claim "consensus" for exclusion—or failing that, covert politicization—of the material. I must say I admire your tenacity. And forcing discussion of material that runs counter to the McCain mytholgy at least enters it in the record, for which all who live in what the neocons dismiss (!) as "the reality-based world" should be grateful to you. — Writegeist (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. My opinion is that, currently, Sarah Palin is biased but is better than John McCain -- both articles being far too solicitous of the subject. I don't accept the view that no negative statements may be included unless certified as true by the bio subject in an interview published in National Review Online.

On the other hand, tenacity is worth something in Wikipedia. For example, while Palin has been running around with her "thanks but no thanks" lie, the Wikipedia article does record that the Congressional vote revoking the earmark came before she was Governor. That simple fact, although rather buried in the article, does make clear to the discerning reader that her statement is false. The Palinistas can't very well argue with an objective report of a Congressional action. Thus, although the article is still biased, I console myself with the thought that it's somewhat less biased than it would be if people like you and me had abandoned it.

I also console myself with the thought that, after November 4, this article will be of considerably less importance.

Incidentally, by coincidence the use of Rolling Stone as a source is also being discussed at Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies#Kennedy article, concerning RFK Jr.'s article. JamesMLane t c 05:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please post at talk. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to take a look at Talk:John McCain presidential campaign, 2008#RfC comments. We're debating whether or not to include jihadists reaction to a McCain presidency. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday November 16th, Columbia University area Last: 6/01/2008 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.

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

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:JamesMLane/George W. Bush substance abuse controversy, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JamesMLane/George W. Bush substance abuse controversy and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:JamesMLane/George W. Bush substance abuse controversy during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm writing because you were at one time a significant contributor to Threshold (online game). Some issues have come up regarding the article's contents, and I'm at an impasse with a possibly-COI affected editor. I would greatly appreciate your participation at Talk:Threshold (online game). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just made formal your proposal. – Anxietycello (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"restore ext link -- notability is a requirement for a Wikipedia article but not for an ext link; this link is apparently related to the article's subject matter"

this link is "apparently" related to the article's subject matter: NO WAY...

Pan blue coalition refers to a Republic of China (taiwan) stub, and ull find plenty of references to the members of the coalition just googling the term, or readning some taiwanese media... The chinese guys, well... I guess I dont have to remind u that China is a dictatorhip... I just dont see how a web page designed by a chinese (PRC, not ROC) has anything to do with taiwanese parties...

Just read what the page says... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.40.115.180 (talk) 11:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday January 18th, Columbia University area Last: 11/01/2008 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).

We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Wikipedia Loves Art! February bonanza (on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Wikipedia Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is an encyclopedia about if not mere description? Is it your intention to revert every single edit I make, no matter how small? Explain to me please how changing "History" to "A history of environmental conservation" is POV? Your edits, and edit summaries, seem a bit over the top to me. Assume good faith? Or is "control" your operative goal? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an attempt by this user to argue that an AfD is required for redirects, in direct contradiction to WP:AFD which states "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD." It has therefore been userfied per WP:TALK#Others' comments "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article".

JamesMLane has reverted the redirect with the edit summary: "redirecting as nn is improper when the article has survived AfD". I would point out that:

1. AfDs have repeatedly disavowed control over merges and redirects as being under their purview (with 'redirect' consensuses often closed as 'keep's).
2. AfDs quite frequently result in 'keep's for NN articles: WP:ILIKEIT & WP:IAR appears to override WP:NOTE more often than not there. In any case a two year old AfD is hardly controlling over redirection, which does not require AfD approval.
3. The second AfD on this article was ludicrously superficial (and the first was "no consensus").
4. Missler is clearly a case of WP:ONEEVENT (at least as far as sourced information goes), so an article on him seems to be inappropriate.

Unless anybody can come up with a strong countervailing argument, it is my intention to restore the redirection. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think Missler is nonnotable, you should list the article on AfD on that basis. The incessant relisting, as happened with Daniel Brandt for example, is abusive and improper, but I agree with you that a two-year-old AfD can reasonably be revisited. Until there's a new AfD, however, the question whether there should be a separate article on Missler has been resolved in favor of keeping one. Your personal opinion that the previous AfD was "superficial" doesn't give you the right to override it. Your edit had the same practical effect as if the AfD had been closed as "delete". If there's a policy that allows that, please give me the link. You could reasonably make Chuck Missler a redirect only if, for example, you were moving the article to a different title.

As to the merits, I don't see him as a one-event figure. The article lists him as the article of two books published by Thomas Nelson. I just Googled this search: "Chuck Missler" -wikipedia -plagiarism (to screen out most Wikipedia mirrors and at least some of the articles about the plagiarism incident) and got 134,000 hits. Neither of those facts is dispositive but they're indications that we should have an article about him. JamesMLane t c 09:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. "If you think Missler is nonnotable, you should list the article on AfD on that basis." No! An AfD is not required for a redirect. And, even when the consensus is for redirect, it is not uncommon for the closing admin to kick the issue back to article talk as a 'keep (as in not-delete), you settle the rest yourselves as it doesn't require Admin involvement'.
2. The second AfD was clearly "superficial": the first keep !vote was on the basis that he was a "published author" (insufficient per WP:BIO#Creative professionals), the second was WP:GOOGLEHITS, the third was bare assertion and the fourth was based on his books being listed on Amazon (which quite frequently lists self-published books of little or no notability). It was closed (after only 2 1/2 days) as a 'speedy keep' as an administrative matter (the nominator was a banned editor), not on its merits. Therefore the original no consensus AfD is controlling.
3. Your "I don't see him as a one-event figure" is likewise WP:GOOGLEHITS. If you think that there is WP:RS beyond this WP:ONEEVENT then the WP:BURDEN is on you to produce it.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would further point out that the cited sources do not establish Missler's notability as "an author" (other than as a plagiarist), "conservative Bible teacher", "founder of the Koinonia House ministry", "former businessman", "minister" or "biblical fundamentalist". So unless we change the lead to read "Charles "Chuck" Missler is a plagiarist", there is no notability established here (WP:ONEEVENT or not). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat my previous request for information about policy. There were two previous AfD's, each based on a nominator's assertion that the subject was nonnotable. Each resulted in the article being kept despite this objection (the first through "no consensus", the second through a direct "keep" result). You now contend that you, as one editor, may effectively overturn the result of those processes, because you personally deem Missler nonnotable, even though several other editors who expressly considered and addressed the point concluded that he is notable. What policy authorizes such an outcome? Please provide a link.

It's just no answer to say that AfD doesn't apply to redirects. When an AfD results in "delete", the article will often be replaced by a redirect to some broader article. That's why I said that your edit effectively reverses the AfD result. The precise issue of notability has been considered by the community. Your view has not been accepted. You can't proceed unilaterally; you must initiate a third AfD. What's the problem with doing that? The way deletionism is running rampant these days, I'd bet on the AfD to succeed. JamesMLane t c 11:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

1. The guideline applying to redirects is WP:REDIRECT. Please note that this guideline makes no mention of an AfD being needed.
2. WP:AFD likewise states "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately."
3. Incidentally, if you don't know what the policy is then please read the relevant policy first, before reverting and before making demands. Failing to do so simply puts others' backs up, and make you look foolish. It is hardly rocket science to work out that WP:REDIRECT & WP:AFD would be the appropriate policies.
4. A 'no consensus' keep + a curtailed speedy-keep-because-nominator-is-banned provides no basis whatsoever for requiring that the article remain un-redirected. Neither resulted in a finding that the article to be unambiguously "notable".
5. You are incorrect to state that "When an AfD results in "delete", the article will often be replaced by a redirect to some broader article." A "delete" close results in a WP:REDLINK.
   • Your previous statement that "Your edit had the same practical effect as if the AfD had been closed as 'delete'" was likewise incorrect. A delete results in a redlink and the loss of the article-history, a redirect does not. A "delete" takes an admin, and an admin to reverse it -- a redirect takes neither.

Now that I have completely demolished your 'AfD first' argument, do you have any WP:RSes demonstrating WP:Notability beyond WP:ONEEVENT? If not, then I'll return the redirect. If you still object to this, then I suggest that the appropriate forum is WP:BLP/N (as WP:ONEEVENT is part of WP:BLP). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice that I read the policies. I will reciprocate with the advice that you reconsider the tone of your comments. I am indeed familiar with WP:Redirect, and, because it provides no support whatsoever for your interpretation, I thought there must be some more specialized policy that you had in mind.

Under the heading "What do we use redirects for?", you'll find the section Wikipedia:Redirect#Sub-topics and small topics in broader contexts, which discusses making a redirect "to a 'list of minor entities'-type article which is a collection of brief descriptions for subjects not notable enough to have separate articles." That's what you've done. You'll note that it expressly incorporates the assumption that the subject isn't notable. If the AfD discussion had concluded that Missler wasn't notable, I doubt that his name would've been left as a redlink; no one would've objected to a redirect to where he was listed. Nonnotability is a basis for deleting an article but is not a basis for deleting a redirect; in fact, the quoted excerpt from the redirect guideline makes clear that redirects of this particular type are appropriate only if the subject is nonnotable.

So, Question One is whether Missler is notable, and Question Two is what process Wikipedia should use to arrive at an answer to Question One. My answer to Question Two is that our process is the AfD. In some instances, including the first Missler AfD, that process does not result in a finding that the article is unambiguously notable. You are quite correct on that score. In such instances, however, the policy directs that "no consensus" defaults to "keep". Furthermore, the second Missler AfD produced an unambiguous "keep". Five users responded, with four favoring "keep", all on the basis of Missler's notability. One of the four then supplemented his comment by adding that the nomination was by a banned user. The editor closing the AfD made no reference to the nominator's status. Nevertheless, you contend that the AfD result was "a curtailed speedy-keep-because-nominator-is-banned" -- a position unsupported by the record. Furthermore, even if that were true, your remedy would be to re-list for deletion or to request a deletion review (which is usually done to contest a "delete" result but which, according to Wikipedia:Deletion review, "includes ... appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion)".

The difference between us is that your answer to Question Two is apparently along these lines: A lone editor who decides that the subject is nonnotable may treat it as nonnotable, even though several experienced editors in two prior AfD's have opined that the subject is indeed notable, even though both AfD's resulted in the article being kept, even though no additional AfD has been commenced, and even though no deletion review has been commenced. In my opinion, such a process would be a recipe for chaos.

There's no reason that the burden should be on me to go to WP:BLP/N or anyplace else. If you still disagree with the results of the prior AfD's, then I suggest that the appropriate forum is WP:AfD or WP:DRV. The discussion could also include whether Missler's self-published books should be included in the article (clearly they should), and whether they relate to his notability (that would depend on what kind of sales and/or critical notice they received). JamesMLane t c 23:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JamesMLane: your claims are directly contradicted by policy. Per the passage quoted above, WP:AFD explicitly disavows responsibility for "problems that do not require deletion"', a category in which it explicitly includes redirects. Your statement that "My answer to Question Two is that our process [for determining notability] is the AfD" is therefore inaccurate. AfD is the process for determining notability only in the context of deletion. WP:AFD actually gives an exhortation to "be bold and fix the problem" -- clearly giving justification for "a lone editor" doing something about it. That the article stood unrestored for six months rather indicates that there was little in the way of a consensus against my WP:BOLD move.

As you have provided no legitimate policy basis why my original redirect was illegitimate, nor any WP:RSes establishing notability beyond WP:ONEEVENT, I am restoring the redirect. If you revert this without providing such RSes, I will immediately bring this article to WP:BLP/N's attention. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to learn that I have failed to provide a basis that you consider legitimate. As you know, my view is that you are not the ultimate arbiter who's empowered to unilaterally overrule the position of the numerous other Wikipedians who considered the matter and decided that Missler was notable, so your view of what's legitimate isn't dispositive. You, however, persist in treating it as such, so there's evidently no point in my continuing to attempt to explain Wikipedia policy to you.

You write, "If you revert this without providing such RSes, I will immediately bring this article to WP:BLP/N's attention." I'm not going to revert it again because I don't believe in edit warring. In any event, as I've stated, I don't see this as a matter for WP:BLP/N. There are no issues here that are unique to BLP's. This could just as well be an article about a long-dead medieval nobleman, whom some Wikipedians considered notable and some considered non-notable. What's at issue is following the proper process for resolving such differences of opinion.

Unfortunately, after I rule out an edit war I have no bright ideas about how to proceed. It seems to me obvious that, given your multiple denunciations of the prior AfD's, you should begin a new AfD, but you're apparently unwilling to do so -- a refusal that at least reflects your consistent position that other editors' opinions on notability don't matter if those opinions conflict with your own. I thought about starting an RfC, but I have to fear that comments you don't agree with would simply be met by, "you have provided no legitimate policy basis why my original redirect was illegitimate". It comes back to that fundamental process disagreement -- that you edit based on your personal view of the merits (in this case, your view that Missler isn't notable enough for an article), regardless of what anyone else believes.

That seems to leave WP:AN/I as the only option. I would hate to do that, because you're certainly no vandal and you believe in good faith that Missler is non-notable, but you are contravening our established process. In favor of going to WP:AN/I is that your override of two AfD's, if allowed to stand, would set a bad precedent, which provides some justification for bringing a petty dispute to that page. Do you have any other ideas? JamesMLane t c 06:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Do you have any other ideas?" Yes!

You can read the following passage which you have repeatedly failed to address from WP:AFD:

For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately.

This is what I did. My actions therefore are NOT "contravening our established process". I was doing exactly what the relevant policy exhorts us to do as an "appropriate" and "efficient alternative" to listing the article as an AfD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would further point out that throughout the above you have never cited a specific (page and section please) policy (or set of policies) that my initial redirect violated. You complaints have ubiquitously been based upon vague and nebulous claims about "established process" and similar -- without citing the policies that establish the specific "process" that I am purported to have violated. This will make it rather difficult for you to report me to WP:AN/I -- as you have no policy basis for a complaint. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there's a strong element of "I didn't hear that" in this discussion. You and I have apparently been talking past each other, with each naturally considering the other at fault.

Believe it or not, I had read the AfD policy even before this discussion began. The policy states, in your quoted excerpt, that an issue like a POV problem isn't a basis for deletion. By contrast, however, nonnotability is a basis for deletion. I never cited a policy to that effect because I thought it was fairly well known. Given that I was evidently mistaken, I apologize for the omission. Here you go: "Reasons for deletion include ... Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)". That's from Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion, seventh bulleted point. Therefore, nonnotability is not among the "problems that do not require deletion". For a final citation, I'll document that your action was expressly based on alleged nonnotability, because your edit summary described it as "redirect of article on non-notable topic".

In this instance, alleged nonnotability is an issue that has already been considered twice in the proper forum, namely AfD. You've stated your grounds for disputing the decisions that were made in those AfD's. Wikipedia policy sets forth the method for resolving such disagreements: "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions." That's from the opening paragraph of Wikipedia:Deletion review.

I don't know if there's a page somewhere that states expressly, "When Wikipedia policy sets forth a procedure for resolving a dispute, and the prescribed procedure involves soliciting opinions from the entire community, and such a procedure is employed, then it's improper for one editor to unilaterally act on his or her contrary conclusion merely because he or she disagrees with the Wikipedians who participated in the prescribed process." That's probably just an implicit policy -- implicit in the policy of having policies, which would otherwise be mere essays. JamesMLane t c 16:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I have been ignoring much of what you have said because you have been raising unsubstantiated irrelevancies.
2. Case in point, it is irrelevant that "nonnotability is a basis for deletion" -- as WP:AFD makes no assertion that it is the forum for all determinations to do with notability, but to the contrary explicitly disavows any responsibility for questions where a deletion is not on the table. As a matter of fact, merger discussions frequently raise notability questions, with non-notable articles often being merged into related topics, in part to avoid the possibility of an AfD resulting in deletion. I think this is an example of a fallacy of the undistributed middle.
3. WP:AFD further states: "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD." (my emphasis) Is that explicit enough for you? Redirects do not require an AfD! (I didn't previously read this far down, as the box at the top already clearly supported my position.)

As WP:AFD explicitly supports my position, I think this matter is closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrafn (talk • contribs) 17:35, 15 January 2009

I'll take that as confirmation that, if I went to the trouble of presenting the dispute via RfC, and twenty other editors showed up and unanimously agreed with me, you would simply dismiss the lot of us as uninformed. In sum, Hrafn Has Spoken, hence you "think this matter is closed." I think you are wrong. JamesMLane t c 18:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No! WP:AFD "Has Spoken" and has clearly and unambiguously stated that redirects don't require AfDs: "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD.", but you still WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Your complete and utter unwillingness to acknowledge explicit policy is both tendentious and disruptive. Enough! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At first I found your tone irritating, but you've graduated to being amusing. In this discussion, if such it can be called, I've made the same points repeatedly. You've made the same points repeatedly. In my view, that means we disagree and we're talking past each other. In your view, it means that I'm being tendentious and disruptive, presumably by my failure to acknowledge your omniscience. Anyway, I agree with your "Enough!" if it means that I've spent enough time trying to explain my position to you, and I'm now ending that effort. The question will have to be addressed through other means. JamesMLane t c 20:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two foregoing subsections are the ones that Hrafn improperly userfied to this page and removed from Talk:Chuck Missler. This was the last straw in a series of actions by him that prompted me to initiate Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#User:Hrafn. My side of the story is set forth there, with some additional comments back at Talk:Chuck Missler subsequent to Hrafn's userfication. JamesMLane t c 08:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JamesMLane, you seem to be too focussed on attacking Hrafn, instead of putting your efforts into improving an inadequate article. As I've said on the talk page, the article hasn't been deleted, a biographical stub which fails WP:V and WP:BLP has been made into a redirect. Go thou, look for good sources and base the article on them. If it saves you typing, the previous versions of the article are all there in the history, and clicking on the "edit this page" tab will give you all the text to amend. The essential thing is to ensure that all statements are properly backed up by reliable sources. WP:CITE gives useful advice, and if you've any further questions I'll do what I can to explain. . . dave souza, talk 09:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to you at Talk:Chuck Missler#Report of editor assistance request concerning Hrafn. All I'll add here is my response to your comment about my allegedly "attacking Hrafn". I invite you to read the full discussion with these hypotheses in mind: My comments were directed to the merits of Hrafn's action, with no personal attacks; Hrafn's general tone toward me was far more belligerent and contemptuous than mine toward him. I admit that the tone of his comments irritated me, so I was primed to react when he removed my comments from the talk page -- a serious breach of Wikiquette, IMO. It is not, however, a personal attack for me to say of a particular edit that it was improper. Love men, slay errors, as St. Augustine said. JamesMLane t c 10:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,James. I am in over my head on the Mark Dybul page. I explained on its talk page where I am coming from and why I ventured to edit the page, but it's been through lots of contortions since then -- some interesting, some of questionable fairness, etc. I think it could make for a very interesting page with good editing. I don't have an axe to grind except to make it a sound, interesting page. hugs, CeliaCelia Kozlowski (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Meetup—Museum Extravanganza Next: February 6-7, at the Met Museum and the Brooklyn Museum Last: 01//2008 This box: view • talk • edit

Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on User:Hrafn-bullshit, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because User:Hrafn-bullshit is pure vandalism; this includes redirects created during cleanup of page move vandalism.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting User:Hrafn-bullshit, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot (talk) 07:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per request, thanks for undoing the vandalism. . dave souza, talk 07:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do want you to know that it was not I who spelled pathophysiology with an I for the Y, but it was I who saw it and didn't fix it these many times I read and re=read the LBD page. Hmmm, now I see Wikipedia has redlined pathophysiology. I wonder if it will do that for pathophisiology. Yes, it doesn't like that either. I'm sure pathophysiology is correct. hugs, cεlἴα, with no tildes on my keyboard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celiakozlowski (talk • contribs) 17:22, 17 February 2009

On my screen, at least, Wikipedia has even redlined "redlined", which seems somehow inconsistent. Anyway, before making the edit, I did double-check an online medical dictionary to confirm "pathophysiology". JamesMLane t c 03:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood; if you look at the edit sequence, I was trying to remove a separate piece of vandalism, but either TW or I undid the wrong one and I immediately corrected the mistaken revert. —EqualRights (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]