Talk:Lanny A. Breuer/Archive 1

Untitled
Hey, regarding the speedy deletion tag, I made this page because I looked him up after the NY Times ran a story about Roger Clemens' upcoming testimony to Congress -- Breuer was retained to represent Clemens. All that came up was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton in which Breuer is one of only two lawyers on Clinton's defense team with no individual page.Shayanakadidal (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Lanny Breuer needs sections added on Fast & Furious and Roger Clemmons defense
Hello. A bit unhappy and also a bit sceptical as to the unbiassed bent of Wiki now. Breuer def needs a thorough section on his obvious involvement in Operation Fast & Furious. There are PLENTY of subjects on this website where suspicions of involvement are parsed and detailed. This page on Breuer should be no exception. When Americans are killed with guns the DEA gave to Mexican thugs, they should be able to know that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrapette Jones (talk • contribs) 01:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In all fairness, Wikipedia is not a oneline debating board, it is an encyclopedia. Alternatively, Fast and Furious is a censored topic on Wikipedia, as-is any the inclusion on Wikipedia of [Fast and Furious] involvement of "certain officials" linked to the program.   And by "involvement", I mean "notable", "reference-based" factual information of encyclopedic and historical value.


 * But hey, I don't define reality here. A cabal does.  And it's a cabal with "certain obligations", if you will.

Turtlewaxingmycar (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

'Fast and Furious' scandal information is censorship-banned on Wikipedia
Some helpful person named Edinburgh Wanderer removed my edits related to Senator Grassley asking for the resignation of Breuer, and the articles stating (in clear language, in the title) that Breuer got caught lying. "Contributions not constructive". Really.

Maybe in Edinburgh, that's how things work. But in the United States, we call that censorship.

Dudes, this is an encyclopedia. Not the.... I don't know what. Whatever it is that you edit at-will and erase at-will in Edinburgh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turtlewaxingmycar (talk • contribs) 17:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * i suggest you read Biographies of living persons. if you can comply with that then go ahead but it must be neutral. Also the reason your edits were reverted were because [] gloo identified them as vandalism. Edinburgh   Wanderer  17:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Help - 'Register' article needed
Wikipedia gang censoring all write-up about Fast and Furious. This is documented already on the talk page of Lanny Breuer. And gosh, it's true.

Ban me. Make material for the press to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turtlewaxingmycar (talk • contribs) 18:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You may have a valid position to put forth. However, the article talk page is the place to make your point.  Repeating "it's the truth", "it's documented" and "Wikipedia is censoring me" are not arguments; they are protests.  You state " this is an encyclopedia"...indeed, but it is not a newspaper.  An event or place or person must be notable to be included.  If you read the Inclusion criteria of Notability (events) you will find more information to help you put your ideas forward.  The Biographies of living persons policy has also been pointed out to you and you have not addressed that issue yet.  Please understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and discussion is the process by which editorial decisions are taken.  I'll watchlist this page in the event you have any questions.  Regards  Tide  rolls  23:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Lather, rinse, repeat, and "Call the Register")
Of course I have a valid position. Don't be patronizing.

I have a valid position. I put it forth. It is not a protest. I made a contribution which is fact-based and notable. Thank goodness I didn't spend (er, "waste") too much time doing so, as any effort in this direction is an utter waste of time.

Because, it is a matter of documented fact that Wikipedia is censoring F&F, and any topic linked to F&F (for example, AAG Breuer being under investigation, and the fact that his resignation was requested by Congress, and failing tender of his resignation, that he should be fired). That is not news, that is encyclopedic fact. I call to attention that Fast and Furious is listed on WP as a movi. Whereas in fact, F6F is a well-documented (and highly-"notable") scandal which has transpired throughout 2011, with strong Wikipedia censorship. My commentary (which I did not spend much time on, thankfully) was on the outcome in relation to the AAG Breuer, who appears to be the subject of Wikipedia "protection" by "inside forces", in the same manner as one can see the subject-matter F&F is being treated on WP.

The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia has strong (how do I put this tenderly) governmental 'buy-in' , and there is, as a byproduct of this 'buy-in' a concerted tendency to pamper certain governmental interests. For example, the interest in not mentioning notable material which is unflattering, however true, encyclopedic, well-documented, and having strong historical implications.

I simply don't feel like wasting all day fighting with Wikipedia's well-known cabal to make that point. Being slam-dunked 3 times in 20 minutes was sufficient, (thank you very much).

Enjoy your censored encyclopedia. Have a great day. And this will, eventually wind-up in the Register, or some other newsprint, à la "Wikipedia protecting DOJ", or something of that ilk. Much in the same manner that "DOJ edits Wikipedia" showed-up in print two (or so) years go. You know the drill. And it is *ever* so preditable.

Turtlewaxingmycar (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Define unconstructive, please
Why don't you get some cut-and-paste material to make clear what kind of notable material doesn't ruffle the feathers of the cabal, so the rest of us plebian-fools understand what we "can-and-cannot" say about unelected Federal officials, without being slam-dunk erased by a longstanding cabal-member (or one of his meat-puppets, or 2ndary accounts), so we don't waste our valuable time.

I for one, would like to know in advance what I am allowed to write, without being called "unconstructive".

Define "unconstructive", svp.


 * Some of us need instructions. Show us the way.  "Walk us down the primrose path".

Turtlewaxingmycar (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Fast and Furious appears to be a censored topic on Wikipedia
I will start-out by being sarcastic. Because I find it frustrating that I am forced to explain something so very basic, while being called names.

Just for example, explain to us how we should (um) "embellish", I believe the word is, any description of an unelected Federal official (or military official) in a manner which is (um, dare I say it) "constructive". Presumptively, constructive to someone's ego, or vanity, or reputation, if you will.

I would like some explanation (or cut-and-paste edits) to help me better how to communicate in this brave new world.

See, I'm less concerned about Wikipedia content, and more concerned about the number of officials paid to edit Wikipedia. Not to mention the set of laws in-play at this juncture in history. The whole thing is terrifying, so I would like a primer manual in how to express myself in a manner appropriate, or "constructive".

For example, rather than editing about the fact that Mr. Breuer, in public Congressional testimony, was asked to step-down, or about the program which has caused scandal to the Department of Justice (not to mention providing support-materials used in the murder of a Federal officer), perhaps I should write a poem about the honor and glory of AAG Breuer. Perhaps I should write a song about the integrity and honor of the DOJ. Perhaps I should write a long discoursive edit about the valor of the investigation capacities of the DOJ Criminal Division.

Turtlewaxingmycar (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Another idea would be to read the notability guideline and the biographies of living persons policy and explain how your edit follows the the former and doesn't violate the latter. If you have specific questions regarding WP:N or WP:BLP post them, preferably without polemical invective, and I will attempt to provide answers.  Please keep in mind that article talk pages do not exist for general discussion about a topic but are to be used for discussion related to article improvement.  Tide  rolls  04:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I was being sarcastic. That seems appropriate in such a case as this.  In fact, that's the only response to such ridiculous behavior.  But back to the point:
 * Firstly, with all due respect, you have misinterpreted me as saying "Wikipedia is censoring me", when in fact, Wikipedia is censoring a notable topic, the nature of which appears to be related to persons or institutions that members of Wikipedia want to protect (i.e. the DOJ, and Mr. Breuer).i.e., This isn't about me. You (and 2-3 other persons) are dissembling and trying to make this about a personal issue, when the point is that this is about "Fast and Furious" a notable DOJ scandal, in which AAG Breuer is implicated, being censored by key members of Wikipedia.
 * Secondly, I call to attention that writing about a notable scandal, and making reference to documented participation of persons-involved in their biographies, is not "polemic invective". That is normal editing. I used standard-bearing references, and 'began' to write about a notable topic.  I stopped due to the fact that what I first-drafted was immediately censored (nearly immediately, i.e. this tiny-stub-page is clearly on 'watch-lists' galore), and I noticed that in mid-year 2011, another editor had complained (on the Breuer talk page) that he, too, was being censored on Fast and Furious and also in relation to Breuer's contact with the scandal.  Back to your point about invective: that facts, such as presented, are unsettling to persons related to the subject matter at hand is unfortunate, but that is the nature of documenting historical fact.
 * Lastly, I don't have specific questions. What is being done here is very clear.  I have made note of it, "at length". Turtlewaxingmycar (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Secondly, I call to attention that writing about a notable scandal, and making reference to documented participation of persons-involved in their biographies, is not "polemic invective". That is normal editing. I used standard-bearing references, and 'began' to write about a notable topic.  I stopped due to the fact that what I first-drafted was immediately censored (nearly immediately, i.e. this tiny-stub-page is clearly on 'watch-lists' galore), and I noticed that in mid-year 2011, another editor had complained (on the Breuer talk page) that he, too, was being censored on Fast and Furious and also in relation to Breuer's contact with the scandal.  Back to your point about invective: that facts, such as presented, are unsettling to persons related to the subject matter at hand is unfortunate, but that is the nature of documenting historical fact.
 * Lastly, I don't have specific questions. What is being done here is very clear.  I have made note of it, "at length". Turtlewaxingmycar (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that measured response. We may be talking at cross purposes here; I'll try to clear that up.  I have expressed no opinion regarding your edit.  Editorial decisions are not an administrator's job.  Editorial decisions are made by the community, based on consensus and following this project's policies and guidelines.  Consensus cannot be determined without discussion and discussion cannot occur in a disruptive environment.  This is the point I have been attempting to make here.  I am not telling you what you can say and what you can't.  I'm telling you that what you are saying is being rendered meaningless because you are not following this project's guidelines.  Talk page posts that do not address issues raised or go into the subject of fart aromas while making nazi references are not discussion and, worse, do not promote discussion.  While I was typing this post you altered a comment so that it changed the context.  So, you see, from my standpoint this is about you; more specifically about your behavior.  It's you choice to address the issues raised regarding your edit but you will have to do so within the policies and guidelines of this project.  Tide  rolls  08:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Tiderolls:
 * First comment:
 * I didn't make nazi references. That's Mike Godwin's schtick.  I refered to fascism.  Possibly your awareness of fascism is limited to nazism, but mine is not.
 * Second comment:
 * Such as concerns sarcastic remarks about people being "above the law" (i.e. farts don't smell), all I can say is that the adage "some animals being better than others" applies, when ad-hoc decisions are made on unsubstantive grounds, and I repeat, the topic is being censored. Wikipedia is not managed by consensus, it is oftentimes managed by mob-mentality. This is well-known, it is a phenomena that shows-up especially on protected topics, and this topic (Fast and Furious) is a protected, censored topic on Wikipedia.  Full stop.
 * Third comment:
 * Citation of policies and guidelines, as you should well-know by now, is a means of providing cover for mob-mentality. I edited the page briefly, and what I edited was removed 'stat'.  That is censorship.  Period.Turtlewaxingmycar (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Final point:
 * With all due respect: This is not about my 'behavior'. I am angered, because this is an important body of work, it is publicly funded, it makes certain claims, and those claims (validity and objectivity, for example) are neither truthful, nor viable.  My response is needling sarcasm, and mocking - which is much-deserved of persons who ad-hoc delete notable material, in a purportedly public-interest encyclopedia.
 * Frankly, I find the manner in which the censorship is imparted to be childish, puerile-even. Which is why I respond with extreme sarcasm.  For me that is quite normal.  But I don't accept hypocrisy without comment.  You may be a person who thinks hypocrisy is fine, in which case I can understand why my behavior becomes the principal issue at-hand.  Turtlewaxingmycar (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Third comment:
 * Citation of policies and guidelines, as you should well-know by now, is a means of providing cover for mob-mentality. I edited the page briefly, and what I edited was removed 'stat'.  That is censorship.  Period.Turtlewaxingmycar (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Final point:
 * With all due respect: This is not about my 'behavior'. I am angered, because this is an important body of work, it is publicly funded, it makes certain claims, and those claims (validity and objectivity, for example) are neither truthful, nor viable.  My response is needling sarcasm, and mocking - which is much-deserved of persons who ad-hoc delete notable material, in a purportedly public-interest encyclopedia.
 * Frankly, I find the manner in which the censorship is imparted to be childish, puerile-even. Which is why I respond with extreme sarcasm.  For me that is quite normal.  But I don't accept hypocrisy without comment.  You may be a person who thinks hypocrisy is fine, in which case I can understand why my behavior becomes the principal issue at-hand.  Turtlewaxingmycar (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Final point:
 * With all due respect: This is not about my 'behavior'. I am angered, because this is an important body of work, it is publicly funded, it makes certain claims, and those claims (validity and objectivity, for example) are neither truthful, nor viable.  My response is needling sarcasm, and mocking - which is much-deserved of persons who ad-hoc delete notable material, in a purportedly public-interest encyclopedia.
 * Frankly, I find the manner in which the censorship is imparted to be childish, puerile-even. Which is why I respond with extreme sarcasm.  For me that is quite normal.  But I don't accept hypocrisy without comment.  You may be a person who thinks hypocrisy is fine, in which case I can understand why my behavior becomes the principal issue at-hand.  Turtlewaxingmycar (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I find the manner in which the censorship is imparted to be childish, puerile-even. Which is why I respond with extreme sarcasm.  For me that is quite normal.  But I don't accept hypocrisy without comment.  You may be a person who thinks hypocrisy is fine, in which case I can understand why my behavior becomes the principal issue at-hand.  Turtlewaxingmycar (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)