User talk:Knowsetfree

Correlation and causation are separate concepts, which seemingly many don't understand
The Title Needs To Be Changed as discussed here Talk:Correlation implies causation/Page title. I see far too much scientific illiteracy/ignorance on so many public policy issues related to claims by one faction that A causes B, so let's pass a law. Sure enough, a Wikipedia article leads off with a false title. Very important, so I'm repeating what I wrote there here, just in case it gets deleted over there, I'll want to be able to refer to this text again. Here it is --Knowsetfree 05:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As others have remarked, the current title is just plain wrong. How about:
 * Correlation versus Causation
 * Correlation & Causation
 * Correlation is not Causation
 * Distinction between correlation and causation
 * Conceptual difference between correlation and causation

We currently have an extremely poor choice of title. Correlation is a commutative relationship. Just like the equal sign ( = ) in math. A correlates with B, and B correlates with A. However, causal relationships (in the context here) are unidirectional. Matches can cause fires, but fires don't cause matches. True, there is a correlation between matches and fires. However, further investigation and analysis is needed before one can declare that one element causes another. Interactions between other variables in the observed "world" further cast the suggestion of causation. IMHO the most relevant and important use of an article on the subject of correlation and causation would be to overcome one of the human mind's major flaws, the tendency to bestow a causal relationship far too quickly with too little evidence, to draw implications from statistically insignificant data. See Bayesian Theorem. This human frailty explains, at least in part, a broad range of bizarre societal behavior including discrimination, fads, speculative bubbles (recommended reading Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds), and the Salem witch trials. Let's give those who seek knowledge a leg up here by improving this page, and not saddle them with the ball and chain of ignorance. --Knowsetfree 04:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oaktree Capital Management vandalism by anon 208.144.235.251
Looks like another instance of vandalism by this anon to the Oaktree Capital Management page. Please stop. If you have something to say, use a Talk page.
 * Knowsetfree (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Weil, Gotshal & Manges
Another day. Another vandal. But this one is just getting better and betterer. I left a comment on the vandal's empty talk page:


 * Dear Anonymous user 68.173.22.20 Welcome to Wikipedia. Please register. Please contribute to wiki in a positive way. Please note ::that the NPOV and other wiki policy does not support anonymous users editing on wiki for the purposes of self-promotion. ::--Knowsetfree (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

But look at the vandal's comment on the edit history. As if user Milleri was a real wiki contributor. All of the anon's and Milleri have contributed for one purpose. These mysterious unknown people have done nothing for Wikipedia other than trying to delete from the public's view the true facts about Weil, Gotshal's history of misconduct. And for all I know there may be other findings of misconduct out there. Why exclude the misconduct facts about this one law firm? Seriously people, wikipedia displays both pro and con information on various topics. That is what makes wiki different from PR media and so valuable. Please, this back and forth is getting old. -- Knowsetfree (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, how the vandalism continues. Now it is from anonymous user 72.86.41.192 and I would start a discussion with him/her but the anon does not have a single comment on his/her Talk page. Imagine that. Hey anon, please register with Wikipedia, learn about its policies, and become a valuable contributing member. But don't vandalize a web page just because you don't want information about an article subject which is less than flattering. Wikipedia is not a PR device, the truth should be told, that is why so many wiki users value the information here. And just because I'm being very polite with you, don't imagine that your behavior is viewed as anything other than obnoxious.
 * Knowsetfree (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Milleri. Welcome to wikipedia. Please take some time reading about Wiki policies. Come to my talk page if you want to explain your editing.
 * Knowsetfree 02:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, Milleri, I am here making a great effort to help you learn what Wiki is about. Wiki is not about maintaining web pages that mimick the firms own page. If there is negative information about a firm, you can't delete it just because you don't like it. If you have information about other large firms where misconduct was found against them by a judge, then by all means post it. If you continue to stubbornly delete without talking first, you could ultimately lose your privileges to edit on Wiki.
 * Knowsetfree (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

New user Milleri appears to be engaging in vandalism with his first edit. Sir, what makes you think that providing true information about a company is "inappropriate"? Perhaps you meant to say that the actions of the firm were in fact inappropriate, in which case the Federal Judge who found the misconduct agreed, may she rest in peace. I fully encourage you to participate in Wiki, but please take the time to read about policies. First and foremost, Wikipedia is not an advertising or PR vehicle. And hopefully, you are not just a registered version of the anonymous user who has been vandalizing this page about the firm.
 * Knowsetfree 02:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

After a few instances of anonymous editing which removed the misconduct section from the article on the law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges it seems the anon's parting gift was to leave the assertion


 * Weil has not since been cited for misconduct.

While I asked on the talk page and in the article {reference needed and requested }. It has been quite a while, so the "not since" comment was removed. My thoughts are first, there was no reference to back up the asserted fact. If the anon was some official employee of, or a PR rep for Weil, Gotshal & Manges then arguably such anon might have a basis for making the assertion, but he or she would need to identify her credentials to make such a factual assertion. But then again, Wiki is not supposed to be a PR or advertising mechanism for companies. Thus the comment had at best questionable relevance in addition to its doubtable origin. I just felt it was better to remove the nonsequitor. By the way, it was the edits from the prior anon that got me searching about the law firm when I found multiple lawsuits against them for malpractise, and wouldn't you know it, the basis for the suits was conflict of interest, perhaps not coincidentaly the same misconduct which caused a federal official to seek (and achieve) the disgorgement of fees. Fascinating.
 * Knowsetfree 20:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * further edits Knowsetfree (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Weil, Gotshal & Manges edits Holiday's 2007
Please see discussion on the Weil Gotshal page. Do you have a substantive response to the objection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.223.156.64 (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi 75.223.156.64, :left a note for you on your talk page. Please register.  Are you by any chance Milleri?  Perhaps you forgot to log in. My response follows below, given the long history of anonymous edits to the page. If you like, you could copy the entire discussion here over to the Weil, Gotshal discussion page, but that might be distracting. -- Knowsetfree (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

''Weil Gotshal is a highly reputable, ethical law firm that conducts thousands of high profile matters in a highly professional manner for satisfied clients. It seems to me that devoting nearly half of this article to misconduct and malpractice reflects a lack of balance. First, articles about other law firms do not commonly include such sections, even though all firms of this size deal with issues of misconduct and malpractice from time to time. Second, there is no mention of the scores of highly publicized, successful matters in which the firm was instrumental. Please note that I am a member of Weil Gotshal who merely wants the article on this fine firm to be accurate and balanced.''
 * I'm pleasantly surprised to see that we finally have someone, Milleri, stepping forward to talk about the motives behind the periodic anonymous edits to the Weil, Gotshal article. Milleri dislikes the misconduct section of Weil, Gotshal & Manges.  But most relevant is his/her candid admission that he/she is a member of the firm.  I'll have to give Milleri credit for not denying any of the facts.  Here is his/her statement made on the article talk page :

And my line by line my response: -- Knowsetfree (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Weil Gotshal is a highly reputable, ethical law firm that conducts thousands of high profile matters in a highly professional manner for satisfied clients." We could certainly believe that you believe that statement. However, that sort of verbage is pure PR.  By all means, put that type of language in your firm's fliers and letters that you mail to prospective clients.  As far as WIKI policy, that language is totally inappropriate on Wikipedia.  First, what you need to do is understand what Wikipedia is, and what it is not.  It is most surely not a PR vehicle for members of any firm to promote a firm, or to censure unflattering facts.
 * "It seems to me that devoting nearly half of this article to misconduct and malpractice reflects a lack of balance." How much of your client introductory letter, flyers, etc. do you devote to the topics of misconduct and malpractice?  Not intended to be sarcastic, but the reply question illustrates that there is a difference between the purpose behind what you would want to publicly say about your own firm, and what readers of Wikipedia might want to learn?  Can you understand that Michael Bolton is a famous guy, and a malpractice suit by him against your firm is newsworthy?
 * "articles about other law firms do not commonly include such sections, even though all firms of this size deal with issues of misconduct and malpractice".   First, you made me chuckle when you wrote "deal with issues of misconduct" as if to characterize a court's finding and order of misconduct against your firm, which included a Million dollar penalty as something which was unresolved, insignificant, or a common minor thing.  Are you saying that other law firms listed on Wikipedia have had judges make findings of misconduct against them, and that such facts are not in the wiki articles?  If that is true, please give us some examples.  Be sure to reference a verifiable trusted source.  You can't just say "Smith and Jones represent conflicted clients all the time".  I see how it would not be fair to only report misconduct by your firm, if other firms where acting the same way.
 * "Second, there is no mention of the scores of highly publicized, successful matters in which the firm was instrumental." There is also no mention of global warming, or about charitable donations made by all of your employees.  Again, not intending to be sarcastic but just illustrating the perspective of a non member of your firm.  Whether or not your firm may have done scores of good cases, which honestly I would think readers are going to assume about any law firm or they would not stay in business, is not relevant to misconduct section.  If there are some highly publicized successful matters then someone could list them.  But you shouldn't, it would be self promotion.
 * "Please note that I am a member of Weil Gotshal" Is it ordinary for a lawyer of your firm to argue about the ethical practices and reputation of your firm anonymously? Wouldn't it be more ethical for a lawyer to identity himself/herself when trying to defend or promote a cause in the public domain?  Particularly when that cause has to do with the reputation of your firm?  For how many of the anonymous edits attempting to censor what you consider undesirable facts were you responsible?
 * -- Knowsetfree (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC) unresponded comments of mine where given minor grammar and format updates

Hi there. I actually stumbled on your talk page as I notice you had been knowledgeable enough to create an article on Linda Thomsen of the SEC (which I had linked in hedge funds). On this Weil article, I think that POV misgivings concerning this article may have some basis, and have so commented on the article talk page. It depends on whether the emphasis given to misconduct and malpractice is consistent with the RS sources available on this firm. I simply am not familiar enough with the firm to say so, one way or the other.--Samiharris (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Samiharris, thanks for the note about the Linda Thomsen article. As tremendously valuable as WIKI is, is still find it surprising that some very important and relevant articles are missing.  Thomsen is both in a potentially extremely powerful position and she has spoken more forcefully against all forms of corruption than any other SEC official of which I have read.  Back to the subject of the Weil article ... I definitely don't understand what you are saying about emphasis and facts being consistent with RS sources available.  Are you disputing the factual elements of the sections which this editor Milleri, and many other anons before, have periodically deleted?  You probably realize that Milleri, who started as an anon with no other edits, made no contribution to wiki other than deleting these two sections.  Obviously,  these two entries not flattering entries.  Yet even Milleri, an admitted member of the lawfirm, does not dispute the accuracy of the facts.  The entry of a fact is based upon its verifiable truthfulness, not upon a vote of the content of most likely google hits.  Wikipedia is supposed to be different by providing NPOV.  The articles are not intended to solely convey positive information like how large a firm is, awards received, and various recognitions and rankings.  I left some notes for you on the article talk page, but the history is much longer. As is the plain edit history for the article.
 * -- Knowsetfree (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way Samiharris, did you read my direct reponse to the Milleri's post (the you reference) on the article talk page which appears on this page? It immediately preceded your comment on my page.  I attempted to address every poing of Milleri nearly line by line.  I believe one of my comments on the article talk page directed Milleri to see my reply here.
 * --Knowsetfree (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I think you raise some good points. However, what troubles me about this article is that, given its limited size, the fact that the malpractice/misconduct section takes up such a large portion of the article. WP:WEIGHT says in relevant part: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Milleri's status as an SPA (special purpose account) is something that you can note in talk page comments by appropriately tagging them. If IPs have edited from Weil can and should be noted on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard and administrators can intervene. However, the subjects of articles do have a right to comment on their articles in the Talk pages of articles. Also this begs the question of the NPOV issue that they raise, which seems to have some merit. Responding also on article Talk page, where this discussion probably should be. Thanks again on the Thomsen article, which I shall look at and try to expand.--Samiharris (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

'''Hi Samiharris. I have not seen an interpretation of the WP:WEIGHT concept ever used in the context which you propose here.'''
 * Can you direct me to another vote by you for the deletion of content, or actual deletion by you, based upon WP:WEIGHT?
 * Please comment about the WP:WEIGHT issue as it relates to the Recognition section in the same article.
 * Would you like the Misconduct and/or Malpractise sections reduced, or the main article increased in size?
 * Both you and Milleri are engaging a logical fallacy when arguing for the deletion of the unflattering content in the article about Weil, Gotshal & Manges. You are attempting to ingore the different facts in the separate concepts of misconduct and the legal claim of malpractice by combining them into a single concept, a reduction which no reasonable discussion of the seperate issues could tolerate.  Then Milleri introduced an argument for the removal of both concepts by arguing solely against the inclusion of malpractise information.  This is a quite significant logical fallacy and Milleri could probably even tell us the Latin name for the artifice.  In fact, if Milleri attempted to try the same trick in court, she/he could get a finding of misconduct against him/her for doing so.  If you genuinely want to pursue the discussion, please first acknowledge the distinction.  Then if Milleri doesn't give you his honest opinion about the significance of a finding of misconduct by a judge, I'll offer one.
 * -- Knowsetfree (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not arguing for deletion, but rather for reduction, unless someone can make a good case for deletion.
 * Please direct your comments to the content, not the editor. My own personal record on WP:WEIGHT issues is of no bearing on this discussion, though it so happens that I am something of a WEIGHT hawk. I have raised WEIGHT concerns recently in, inter alia, Joe Klein and Martha Stewart, in the former to remove material and the latter to add in one section and reduce in another section. Structurally, I think it is OK for the Weil material to be two subsections under one "controversies" section. The issue is whether this section, however organized, belongs at its current length in such a short article. I have an open mind on the subject, but it seems to me that the answer is no, based on the posts in this page. If the negative stuff is indeed a major proportion of the RS coverage of this firm, then my opinion would be different but you haven't demonstrated that that is the case.--Samiharris (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To avoid duplication, I'd suggest continuing this discussion on the article Talk page. --Samiharris (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
Deletion of Category by user Eastlaw. At least it was not done by an Anon. Hoping to get some talk with Eastlaw. Here is what I posted on Eastlaw's talk page: Why your category deletion for Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman

Hi Eastlaw. Just wondering why you deleted the category for that law firm. I see you are involved in law, or looking for a license. Wouldn't you, as a potential employee of a law firm, appreciate the wikipedia would have a category so that you could discover in advance if you employer had a history of misconduct? And shouldn't the general public have access to this information? I'm not sure what your reason was for deletion. Do you doubt the truth? Please elaborate. -- Knowsetfree (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * -- Knowsetfree (talk) 02:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, first I have to thank fellow Wiki Editor for noticing the vandalism by anon 204.227.243.16 to the article. Good first heads up on the the User talk:204.227.243.16 page. I concurred and invited 204.227.243.16 to respond:


 * Hi 204.227.243.16 and welcome to the world of Wiki. If you believe that the misconduct section of the  Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman is inaccurate, irrelevant, or needs expansion just explain your thoughts and provide any references.  Please contribute, Wiki is better off with more discussion and contribution.  Also, it would be very helpful if you registered.  Helpful for yourself in tracking the topics you have an interest or expertise, and helpful for other Wiki members so we can communicate with you. -- Knowsetfree 06:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I know that Wiki policy is that we must assume good faith. But why would an anonymous editor delete the only factual information about Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman that existed in the article? It smells like a PR firm, or someone's mother trying to make it look squeeky clean. Look, the purpose of Wiki is truth and information, not advertising and PR.


 * I deleted the category because it was a redlink the category hadn't been created yet. If you want to create the category Category:Lawyers & Law Firms Found Guilty of Legal Misconduct please follow the instructions detailed in Help:Category.  Hope this helps.  --Eastlaw (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Right you are Eastlaw, the category was missing. Don't know what happened to it before, someone must have deleted it.  I've replaced the category. -- Knowsetfree (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Revert to corruption
Most recent edit is vandalism by User:Aetheling talked about a video game, and added decaying animal flesh. Also reverted the deletion by User:Ultramarine because Political corruption has more to do with politics, and politicians, the writting of laws. If police corruption, enforcers of the the law, is considered separate from policital corruption then clearly judicial, prosecutorial, and corruption in the law services industry are a valid separate topic. --Knowsetfree 03:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So, according to you the word corruption does not have the meaning of putrefaction or decomposition? Have you checked your dictionary recently? Ever studied biology? Please check your facts before blithely assuming vandalism. While you are at it, please have a look at my contributions to Wikipedia:, and my website Do I look like a vandal to you? And while I'm asking questions, why did you not put a note in my talk page? —Aetheling 05:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Aetheling. Your conclusion is premised on a false reformulation of my point. You are probably aware that words can have more than one meaning. If you are such a prolific Wiki contributor, then you surely must know that Wiki has a mechanism to deal with multiple meanings for the same term. I'll let you demonstrate your Wiki knowledge by naming or describing that mechanism in your next response here. Remember, this is Wikipedia - like an encyclopedia and not Wiktionary like a dictionary. The former has a single article for a terms meaning, the latter lists all definitions of a word. Please try to be civil, it is Wiki policy. The article in question referred to corruption related to social / government interaction, by all means, create an article for your biological term that you desire, and other Wiki Editors may let it stand if they feel it is warranted. Deleting others content while simultaneously causing the dilution and/or obfuscation of an important term, particularly in this day and age, seemed to me like vandalism. What would you call it? And to answer your last question, I didn't comment on your talk page because I selfishly hoped to have a great mind grace his moniker on my talk page. Thanks for responding.
 * --Knowsetfree 03:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I see the source of the problem. You stated above that "The article in question referred to corruption related to social / government interaction", i.e. political corruption, but in fact the reversion that you made was not in that article at all. It was in the disambiguation page Corruption, which is supposed to cover all the various ways of using the word "corruption". If I had inserted the material on putrefaction into Political corruption, then your reversion would have been fully justified, and your comments would have made sense. I apologize for the sharp tone in my reply. — Aetheling 14:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Aetheling, well now I see your perspective. There was a disambiguation layer already there which I was not aware of. So, I'm not sure what the best organization would be. Where does one draw the line between political corruption and other forms of corruption in a society. Arguably they could all be a form of political corruption. When is simple crime corruption, such as if a cop accepted bribes. No matter, I'll revert. As to our discussion, your tone was no more harsh than mine, no need for you to apologize, but accepted and hope you accept mine. I really liked your web page, and glad to see someone doing something about corruption, which really ticks me off these days. My compliment was genuine after I started reading your professional background. As to corruption, People in power sticking it to, leaching off of everybody else. Yuck. You keep up the good work. --Knowsetfree 04:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

DOJ and Revolving Door
''Revolving Door Syndrome is not always considered legally wrong. For example: goverment attorneys at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) are charged with regulating attorney conduct, though they may be employed previously or subsequently by the same type of law firm for which they were supposed to regulate.''

While this may not be legally wrong, it may still be considered a conflict of interest. Are you sure that this is not seen as such by watchdog groups? Lyta79 05:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Lyta. I agree it is a conflict.  Just want to make sure Wiki text is accurate  and "right or wrong" it still seems to be "technically" legal.  My opinion is that it should not always should be legal, and there should be some sort of mandatory disclosure of the Revolving Door conflicts on the part of various industry regulators.  For example, there appears to be no mechanism within the DOJ to monitor this type of conflict.  Perhaps these issues should be added to Wiki. Knowsetfree 23:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ellison's Claims related to Jefferson and Quran
If that's your justification for putting that, then why don't you write it in the text? Do you have any article that directly says he had the Quran to "learn about the enemy?" Anyway, its not like pirates were the most pious people in the Muslim world. Gdo01 05:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that all or most muslims are pirates. Wiki already relates how prior to becoming president, Jefferson attempted to negotiate with the states sponsoring the pirates with their Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, who explained that Muhammed and the Quran gave them authority to attack U.S. Merchant ships and seek ransom.  Jefferson studied the Quran for sure.  Ellison made up his claim that Jefferson embraced Islam.  Once Jefferson became President and thus commander in chief, Jefferson ceased making payments and war was declared against us.
 * How would you justify the inclusion of the whole section about his swearing on the Quran? Why is it newsworthy?  Because Ellison made it so.  Articles must follow NPOV, but the remarks made by the subject "can be used".  Clearly, Ellison is trying to characterize Jefferson's ownership for political gain without support, and in such a circumstance including historical fact is relevant. Knowsetfree 06:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

All the pirate stuff is about Jefferson, not Ellison. Great, Jefferson didn't like pirates, the pirates were Muslims, so what? Do we have to dredge up an example of Christians that Jefferson disliked in any mention of Jefferson owning a Bible? If not, why are Muslims different? Reference to the current political climate doesn't fly.

I notice that you once again tried to put the information in Ellison's page, and it was once again removed. At some point you will have to accept that consensus is against you on this. If you find an actual quote from Jefferson saying that he owned his Koran only because of these pirates, that can be looked at. Without that, your attempted addition is merely guilt by association. Mullibok 13:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The information about the Barbary pirates belongs on the Jefferson page because it has no reference to his Quran which he purchased right after finishing his legal schooling and while taking the bar. He bought the Quran because it was referenced in a book he was studying about natural law, since he became disillusioned by British Common Law after the Stamp Act crisis. The barbary pirates where not an issue for any american until after the Revolutionary War because before that, the American colonies flew under the British flag and the British paid tribute to the pirates to avoid their ships being taken. So Jefferson had his copy of the Quran from 1765 and the first pirate barbary pirate attack on US ships wasn't until 1784 nearly 20 years later. I put a sentence in the Keith Ellison page about when Jefferson purchased the book because people reading blogs wish to continually assert that Jefferson only bought the book to understand his enemy, which ignores the facts. These people think that they have discovered some brilliant truth that has been overlooked because of some national media conspiracy and all they are doing is repeating bad research made by scared people blindly striking out in fear because they think every Muslim that ever lived is actually the boogie man. The sentence is not neccessary if people do not want to continually insert falsehoods about Jefferson's Quran on the Ellison page, but if this keeps happening then I'll put it back in because its irratating to have to explain American history to people who don't care about what actually happened and only want to assert their own views onto the past.--Wowaconia 03:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wowaconia - Provide reliable reference, as defined by Wiki standard, for 1) the date when Jefferson purchased his Quran? 2) Why Jefferson purchased the Quran? (obviously Ellison doesn't count), and 3) Jefferson's desire to pursue "natural law" and 4) establishing that Jefferson believed that the Quran was his tool to learn about "natural law?".  I believe the answer is no.
 * If you can't then the entries will be removed. By the way, would you please define what you mean by "Natural Law"? Knowsetfree 22:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, you must understand neither Wiki nor this talk page is supposed to be platform for you to talk poorly about Muslims, or non-muslims, or boogie men. Stay on topic.


 * I don't recall who it was who placed the false reference, claiming something was a published book when it was clearly not. You could quickly lose editing rights on Wiki if you keep it up. Knowsetfree 22:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the work that was cited, I assumed most people don't have access to a University Library with a subscription to an archive service on historic journals so I put a link to an abstract on the work in the article. Here is all the bibliography info...
 * Hayes, Kevin J. "How Thomas Jefferson Read the Qur'an"
 * Early American Literature - Volume 39, Number 2, 2004, pp. 247-261
 * The University of North Carolina Press

If your not familiar with Kevin J. Hayes, he works out of the The Library of William Byrd of Westover. Madison, Wisconsin; as can be seen at the bottom of this web-page where he is cited by the Thomas Jefferson museum/library at Monticello: http://www.monticello.org/library/tjlibraries/about.html

You can buy this title from a schoolary press here http://www.blackwell-compass.com/subject/literature/article_view?article_id=lico_pubs_13852886

The book says he bought his Qur'an in 1765 (which is almost two decades before the first attack by the pirates on American shipping). I'm not saying that muslims are the boogie man I'm saying the blogs that told you that Jefferson got his Quran when he was fighting the Barbary Pirates are lying to support their bias against Muslims.
 * --Wowaconia 01:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Wowaconia, You need to cite within that work what establishes the claim by Ellison that Jefferson viewed Islam as Ellison described, and your claim that Jefferson was seeking insight into  "Natural Law".  Again, Can you define "Natural Law" and what relationship it has with Islam?  Also, please keep your discussions on Wiki civil.  There is no need to call information sources names such as "blogs" or "liers" or call them biased against anyone.  You certainly wouldn't want them calling you biased.  Try to keep your information fact based, and focus on the point in question at all times. I am going to see if I can look at that reference that you provided Knowsetfree 23:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the reference provided by Wowaconia appears to violate the wiki NPOV and against self published materials. The book in question is published by Blackwell publishing and they are a company whose focus is enabling special interest groups self publish their own materials. Their site states: "Blackwell Publishing is the world's leading society publisher". Clicking on Society Publishing reveals (with bold emphasis added by me):

We need to have other wikipedia editors chime in on this, but it appears to me that Blackwell Publishing does not qualify as a trusted source for Wikipedia under the NPOV policy. I'm not convinced how the first revelation of the date Jefferson purchased the Quran, if known at all, would be revealed in a book authored in 2004. What evidence of the date of purchase of the Quran? It seems more likely the book would know the date that the original printing of the english language translation of the Quran. But the Wiki entry makes a claim as to the date of Jefferson's acquisition. If there was a receipt or other information in the book, then let's look at the factual reference.

To summarize: There are at least two purported facts in Ellison's Wiki page that are not yet supported:  1) When did Jefferson acquire the Quran (De we even know yet if by gift or purchase) and 2) Was Jefferson's contemporaneous image of Islam as Ellison claimed. As to the second point, the only supported fact on Wiki so far that the official representative of the government supporting the Barbary pirates, during negotiations in England, claimed the Quran provided legal justification for their pirate activities. Such claims are mirrored today by some. Also, the existence of pirates throughout history has included those supported by governments to harrass enemies during times of war, and to raise revenues. Spain, England, France, and the Islamic governments in North Africa all authorized pirates at one time or another. However, since Jefferson held the positions that he held, including U.S. President, during the time of the barbary pirates attacks on U.S. interests, Ellison's original claim is highly suspect and needs to be questioned in the appropriate historical context.Knowsetfree 00:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If you go to this link http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access.cgi?uri=/journals/early_american_literature/v039/39.2hayes.pdf
 * you will see that the work was originally published by The University of North Carolina Press in 2004. Blackwell is merely republishing the work to make it available today, the work had to pass the standards of the University of North Carolina before it could be published originally. I left the Blackwell information for you because I thought you might actually want to purchase it and read it for yourself. If you think that Professor Kevin J. Hayes whose been recognized by the people at the Thomas Jefferson museum/library at Monticello is in error than find a scholar who claims otherwise and not just some dude who knows how to type a blog.
 * --Wowaconia 01:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wowaconia, you need to be civil to other editors and your "dude" and "blog" comments are inappropriate. Also, you are unrealistic if you think editors are going to purchase a book in order to search to verify your posts.  You need to verify.  You mention a book, but you don't quote the text that is supposed to prove that Jefferson purchased the book, the date he purchased the Quran, and evidence that Jefferson's motives were search of "Natural Law", and that Ellison's comments on Jefferson are provable.  You have done none of the above.  But it seems you are almost there with the .pdf file.  Please quote the text which support your facts and identify page numbers.  It should be really easy for you.  Knowsetfree 05:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous Vandalism to Weil, Gotshal & Manges article
We've got another anonymous user who never having made any contribution before to Wiki, takes the sole action of deleting the Misconduct section referring to the company. People, Wiki is not an advertising or PR service, it is an informational encyclopedia. If you made the deletions, or would like to delete, please start a discussion.
 * -- Knowsetfree 05:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Another anonymous user with numerous vandalism instances reported by other editors on his user talk page made an edit to the Misconduct section of the Weil, Gotshal & Manges article. We have to assume good faith, so I left a request for follow up and reference on the users talk page here User_talk:64.132.60.202. Time will tell. Here is what I posted:


 * You enterred a line of text for the article Weil, Gotshal & Manges "Weil has not since been cited for misconduct." I'm assuming that this entry was not another instance of vandalism on your part. The article in question recently received 2 instances of vandalism related to the same section. First, your point is not clear. Are there other instances of an examiner being appointed to investigate Weil, Gotshal & Manges for misconduct to which you are refering? Can you provide the referenced source for this fact? Wiki content must originate from reliable sources. If you have personal knowledge, please elaborate.
 * -- Knowsetfree 04:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Onion seems to be self peeling. I did a little googling to try to find support for the anon editors claim that the firm has "not since been cited for misconduct". Boom, right away we see an article were even the firm's own client claimed conflict of interest problems by the law firm. OK, I'm sure that technically a client complaining is different then a judge ruling. But it seems pretty amazing and relevant, especially since both negative issues related to conflict of interest. Vandals take note: the attempts to sanitize this firms page as if Wiki is a PR service only draws more attention. Interesting stuff, even presidential contender Rudi - Rudolph W. Giuliani worked on the case at one point, but not for the firm that was sued for malpractise.
 * -- Knowsetfree 05:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving your RfC to the Keith Ellison talk page
I am moving your RfC to the talk page and off the main article page as per the wikipedia guidelines at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Instructions (emphasis added) "Create a section for the RfC on the bottom of the article talk page with a brief, neutral statement of the issue"
 * Wowaconia 10:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That looks appropriate to move the RfC. And thanks for the wiki reference. Now, let's get some other editors chiming in on this discussion.
 * -- Knowsetfree 01:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Two different organizations
Upon review of your arguement I see that there is no need for a RfC as you have made an error in your citation:

Please look at the urls more closely Blackwell-Compass is not the same as Blackwell society.

The republisher of the work is found at http://www.blackwell-compass.com/subject/literature/article_view?article_id=lico_pubs_13852886 Blackwell-Compass’ homepage states (emphasis added) “Unique in both range and approach, Literature Compass is an online-only journal publishing peer-reviewed survey articles from across the discipline.”

The page you were refrencing is http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/press/societies.asp "Blackwell has many years' experience of partnering with societies, and currently has contracts with over 600 societies. We understand how societies work and have a track record of helping them fulfill their missions."


 * --Wowaconia 11:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reading my post regarding Blackwell. However, you still have not provided any citation for the facts that you declare. You merely posted a link to an article abstract, but the abstract does not prove what you claim the document proved. This is insufficient for a Wiki reference. Also, you are still going to have a problem with blackwell-compass. View the webpage which holds the abstract, who holds the copyright? Who is the publisher of the journal? You are going to have troubles trying to hold blackwell out as reliable source. There are many online-only "publications" which claim everything from "Astrology is the only true science", to Holocaust denial. This source is not going to be considered reliable under wiki guidelines, IMHO. If your "facts" are so clear, why wouldn't an reliable biography of Thomas Jefferson has printed them long ago? See if you can find a real source. Then quote the source, you haven't even completed this step with the "source" you already provided, and that is troubling.
 * -- Knowsetfree 01:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The work was intially published on paper by The University of North Carolina Press in 2004, Kevin J. Hayes is a recognized authority on Jeffersonian history. The link to the abstract is a courtesy to interested readers without access to the full work, but the citation is to the book itself not the abstract. Blackwell is not the publishing source that I'm citing, the University of North Carolina Press is. On your 05:32, 26 January 2007 edit, entitled (→Quran Oath Controversy of the 110th United States Congress - reference showing Jefferson's quran ownership was to understand the enemy). You attempt to back up your assertion by citing http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtjprece.html but there is no mention of the Qur'an in that entire article.--Wowaconia 19:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wowaconia, thank you for the responce. You still have not provided any reference to back up your assertions for text which appears online in a Wiki article. I see you are referring to a book. What page of that book, what line, etc. supports the factual assertions which appears online in the Wiki article. It is easy for someone to have read a book and believe facts came from that book, but to be mistaken. I'm not sure what the wiki policy is if a book is not available online, as far as having someone verify it. But you should be able to give page and line numbers for a number of explicit facts in the current version of the article which you are defending from edits such as: The date Jefferson acquired the Quran That Jefferson purchased the Quran The reason Jefferson acquired the Quran That Jefferson was upset with our nations law That Jefferson was pursuing "natural law" as an alternative

Your counter argument to me is irrelevant even if correct, that I offered no specific proof that Jefferson was thinking that he acquired the Quran in order to understand the why the foreign ambassador of the North African countries asserted legal authority to attack shipping under the American Flag and extort payments because we were "infidels" and they were authorized to do so under the Quran. I don't have a "mind print out" of Jefferson's thoughts at the time. Nor do you, and I doubt the book you have does either. Your argument fails for a few reasons. First, the question is the current text, and whether the current text should stay. You are given a chance to substatiate, and instead you choose to argue for the sake of arguing. I believe Wiki editors have been extremely gracious to give you so much time to reference your "facts", but time is running out. Another reason why your argument fails, is because the contemporaneous facts are against your version, and support the historical reality.

Facts that are not in dispute include: the existence of the Barbary Pirates at the time, that the first international war fighting of our nation due was under President Jefferson's command against the pirates claiming legal authority under the Quran to extort payments from U.S. flagged vessels, as that "what's his name" in England as negotiator on behalf of the nations harboring the pirates claimed legal authority to extort payments from infidels a/k/a merchant shipping under U.S. flag. Historical facts support that Jefferson needed to understand the enemy and their asserted authority to wage financial and pirate war against our flagged vessels. There is not factual basis for Ellison to claim that Jefferson embraced islam, only fact that Jefferson went to war against a number of pirates who attacked U.S. citizens while seeking money extortion and claimed that the Quran authorized them to do so. Do you disbelieve the Quran? Do you disbelieve that the Quran authorizes believers to demand money from non-believers who won't convert? If not solely on the basis of being a non-believer, What is your basis to argue against President Jefferson having ordered our nation to fight the Barbary Pirates who claimed authority under the Quran to attack our flagged shipping and hold citizens as hostage unless ransom was paid. -- Knowsetfree 21:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Haven't heard an answer from Wowaconia so I invited him to respond with a note on his talk page, a copy follows:

Keith Ellison (politician) - please don't drop the ball
Hi Wowaconia. You were involved in numerous deletions of content, and insertions of numerous facts concerning the Keith Ellison (politician) article. Please back up your claims, or the edits will need to be reverted. You spent a tremendous amount of time, and typed a lot of words onto my talk page, but what we really need is for you to provide sourcing. You have been given many weeks! And your reference on your talk page to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#Reliable_sources is on point in this context. Please practise what you preach, and provide references.
 * -- Knowsetfree 05:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Scientific Consensus article edit deleted
Hi User:William_M._Connolley, sorry to see you summarily delete my contribution to Scientific consensus, particularly without any Talk, though you did leave a line of comment. However, your one line comment begs more questions then it answers. Do you say the edit seems POV or is POV? What is the POV? The most glaring problem with your comment is your statement that the Scientific Method is not well defined. Have you ever studied science in school? The Scientific Method itself is a formal part of the curriculum in secondary education in every state I have seen, and I believe many colleges as well for introductory courses. Are you not aware of the major emphasis in education on the history of scientific advances in the face of great societal opposition, for example Galileo Galilei? Are you not aware of the significant suffering and opposition for scientists that dared to ask questions and suggest answers that conflicted with the status quo? IMHO you need to come to grips with this glaring fundamental error in your historical perspective and topical awareness regarding the scientific method, learn about it, it is your friend. Especially when you purport to be of sufficient expertise to comment on the scientific consensus article. After you have done that, please explain what the POV is in the edit you deleted. Also let us know if you meant a word other than "seems", which itself is a weasel word by the way. -- Knowsetfree 03:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd venture a guess that WMC has indeed "studied science in school", if this is any indication. Raymond Arritt 04:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Um. First, I don't see why you expect people to put talk behind every revert - you didn't put any talk behind your original edit. But putting that aside if we can - the idea that the sci meth is welll defined is wrong. Just read the sci meth page and its talk to see that. I saw your edit as an attempt to set up an artificial conflict between sci meth and sci cons, which seems to afflict many people. All your ask questions and suggest answers that conflicted suggests to me that yuo're intent on puffing up the skeptics William M. Connolley 15:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi William, thanks for replying. I hope and believe that this Talk will benefit all. Not to get argumentative... Do you have anything to support your contention that I expect people to put talk behind every revert? Didn't think so. Perhaps you were merely attempted to mimic the tone of my first responce to your deletion. I'll ignore this point because it will distract attention from genuine issues.


 * If you're going to ignore this point, then ignore it, don't comment on it. If you didn't expect t:, why did you write particularly without any Talk William M. Connolley 20:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Scientific Method Do you claim particular expertise with respect to science? Are you genuinely unaware that the scientific method is a defined process that is explicitly taught? Are you genuinely unaware of the shocking historical of persecution (oh, and execution) of scientists by society including religions and governments, for their having dared to ask questions or posed theories that conflicted with the status quo? By no means am I suggesting, or have I suggested, that every scientist is smart, unbiased, rational, without personal or financial self interest, sane, or truely motivated by the pursuit of knowledge. Historical Record Filled With Persecution of Scientists It just seems so shocking that the world of wiki would want to remove the historical record when it comes to the contributions and sacrifices made by a number of scientists, in lite of the amazing world we live in today and technologies. Um, like computers, telecommunications, and the internet. So, maybe we are getting somewhere on the historical record and the historical and current importance of the scientific method. Maybe you can generate a good entry? If not sci med or sci cons, which article should include a reference to the persuction of people pursuing the sci med? Please display POV problem and clarify "seems" Would you still please illuminate what you considered POV in the edit you deleted, and "de-weasel" your word choise of seems. Your comment: "artificial conflict between sci meth and sci cons" Do you hold that sci meth and sci cons are the exact same concept? If you genuinely do, why didn't you perform a deletion of one article, and combine non duplicative content? I have never heard a politician recite or invoke the scientific method (sci meth) in order to assert control, impose taxes, threaten regulatory or enforcement actions. In contrast, claims of scientific consensus are common by politicians in all of the same contexts. Similarly, lawyers will claim sci cons whenever it "suits" their purpose. As both terms are man made, and reflect human efforts at pursuing knowledge or persuasion, wouldn't any difference between their semantics be as you say "artificial" by definition? I suggest that sci meth is aligned with the pursuit of knowledge, and that scientific consensus is an arbitrary claim, by potentially biased party, as to the current state of knowledge as developed by the scientific method. Sci Cons is a tool of rhetoric whereas sci meth deals with the production of theories, fact, observation, and analysis. Sci meth brings knowledge and insight over potentially a long period of time, sci meth welcomes differing opinions and continual questioning. -- Knowsetfree 16:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you've lost me with the rest. To take but one example: you don't seem to see any alternative to "artificial conflict" and "exact same concept" wbich is obviously wrong. Or another: no the sci meth is not precisely defined. Like I said before: read the sm page and the talk William M. Connolley 20:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bill, thanks for the apology but you need to come clean. Obviously, the weight of so fact which conflicts with your world view is stifling your Talk. So, Let me break it down to make it easy for you: Please concisely and clearly confirm (Yes/No) that you now agree that Scientific method and Scientific consensus are appropriately different terms with different meanings. <li>Do you continue to contend that the Scientific method is not defined and the concept taught as subject matter in education?</li> -- Knowsetfree 16:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * First: the obvious: we're not on first name terms. If you care to corect that we can proceed to the rest William M. Connolley 16:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Mr. Connolley. I'm sorry about the multiple addresses to your first name. By the way, if you go to Amazon.com and type Scientific method for a book search, you will see numerous books dedicated to the topic of teaching the subject matter (a gross search result of some 40,000 books). Similarly, searches of educational materials at the secondary and college level reveal a similar results. As far as the public and Wikipedia, the distinction in the use of political / commercial invocations of the term "Scientific consensus" as opposed to an application of the Scientific method should be addressed by the Wiki articles. On an ever growing number of subjects, parties with a political and / or financial interest (aren't they often the same?) routinely invoke a claim of Scientific consensus in order to influence the flow of money, either taxation, or funding studies, or indirectly through regulation or litigation. Thus, let's establish: <li>Do you now agree that Scientific method and Scientific consensus are appropriately different terms with different meanings.</li> <li>Do you agree that the Scientific method is a defined process which is taught as subject matter in education?</li> -- Knowsetfree 05:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Game theory
Hi Knowsetfree, I replied here Best regards, Pete.Hurd 18:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hewlett-Packard
I have raised some concern about the controversy section of the Hewlett-Packard article, and having noted that you have shown interest in previous talk page discussions on this topic would invite you to input at []. thanks Key lay 31 hablame 23:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Keylay31, for my notes I have copied my comment on the HP page below

--Knowsetfree 21:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * User Keylay31 alerted me on my talk page of the discussion here, which is good because I think the HP article is in dire need of updating as to the illegalities on the board. The issues have been addressed in the press, but as HP is probably the #3 dollar spender of PC advertising and #1 in printers, etc. we should not expect the focus and intensity to survive.  This is the type of thing Wiki needs to include.  Obviously, there will be countless "controversies" involving any type of competition, including business.  Image if Wiki attempted to recite every "controversy" regarding pro sports.  But what we are talking about here is criminal conduct by the highest levels of a leading corporation.  We have a computer company acting illegally as big brother spying on people.  Spying not just on their competitors or customers, spying on their own ranks.  So, first we have the illegality of the spying.  Then we have further illegality in the form of SEC violations.  Whenever a director resigns due to a dispute with the operations of the company, the issue must be disclosed in an 8K and/or other SEC filings.  This is like Watergate, the cover up is inflaming the original crime.  The relevance and importance to citizens can not be understated.  A separate section needs to be devoted to this major controversy IMHO.  Right now it looks woefully inadequate.  So just to summarize, I would agree that the "small controversies" do not seem of lasting reference value for the wiki article, but the criminal misconduct in the spying and SEC violations does warrant a separate section. --Knowsetfree 21:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Greenhill & Company
I've tagged this for deletion as asvertising, at the moment it doesn't assert notability. Just letting you know.

pablo :: <span style="border-bottom: 1px solid #cc3300; border-right: 1px solid #cc3300; padding: 0px; background: #ffff00; color: #cc3300;"> ... talk ... 21:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for giving me the heads on your opinion that the article only serves as advertising. I disagree and please allow me to explain.  This firm does not cater to individuals, it is not a Charles Schwabb.  This firm caters to hedge funds, private equity funds, and people with more money than Operah. This firm is involved with billions of dollars of our economy.  Wiki is an important resource for information like this so public interest people can put news into perspective.  If we take a look at Wiki's policy for determining what is advertising I believe this article does not fit.  Are there particular edit you would suggest?  Please do not delete without discussing, perhaps we can pull others in to get involved.  FYI, I created the page because "Greenhill" was already listed on an article with about 30 investment banking firms listed, perhaps more than half alfready had their own pages.  If you delete this page, you will need to delete about 15 others with your precedent. Knowsetfree 22:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to delete any pages, I can't. And each of these investment banks you refer to may have their own issues with notability and advertising, I don't know, and I'm not going to look. There is still nothing in the article that makes this company notable that I can see. pablo :: <span style="border-bottom: 1px solid #cc3300; border-right: 1px solid #cc3300; padding: 0px; background: #ffff00; color: #cc3300;"> ... talk ... 23:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pablo, on one hand, it could be argued that the mention of any firm is advertising. But if that were the case then Wiki shouldn't have any listings about companies. You are right to pose the question. From my perspective it might have been preferrable to just start a discussion instead of the flag for speedy deletion. These guys have influence over the flow of billions of dollars every year, and their profile should be raised in the public eye, not shadowed. Knowsetfree 02:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that is really, really odd. All evidence of the article has been obliterated. There is no edit log of the article being deleted, the article's talk page to which I contributed and referenced the discussion here, and "my contributions" shows no evidence of the article having been created. However, there is evidence of the entries to the talk page here. Let me check some things. I've got to figure out 1) what happened here, how things disappeared so dramatically. I've seen new articles get deleted before, but not without a trace; 2) how to start a discussion with some senior editors. I believe the issues are really important here, and the repression of information is telling. Knowsetfree 17:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. I've read this and your message on my talk page.


 * Speedy deletion is not an automated process, an administrator will review the article first. Sometimes they remove or change the tag to a more appropriate one, but if they agree with the assessment ot the article as described in the tag they will delete. I know that some administrators delete article talk pages along with the article whilst others leave the talk page, as it will still be there if the article is re-created. There is a 'trace' of the article in the deletion log here, and it looks like the deleting administrator in this case, User:Citicat deleted the talk page as well.


 * The comments that you made here and on the article talk page about this company and the amount of money they control were certainly interesting, but unfortunately they were not echoed in the article itself. Without any real assertion of notability it just looked to me like a brief advert for an otherwise uninteresting bunch of financiers.


 * There is a deletion review process, but I have never used it (haven't got round to reading about it yet) and so can't help you with that at the moment.


 * Note that there is nothing to stop you re-creating this article, but unless it includes verifiable information from reliable sources the chances are it will be up for deletion again as either non-notable or advertising.


 * More information can be found at:-
 * Notability guidelines in general
 * A guide to writing articles about companies
 * The speedy deletion process


 * There are a lot of guides and policies to read there, I realise! If you hunt around most of the information that you will need is documented somewhere on Wikipedia. You cna leave me a message if you have any more questions, it's even possible I may know the answer. Or if you place a tag on your talk page a more experienced user will swing by.


 * Cheers pablo :: <span style="border-bottom: 1px solid #cc3300; border-right: 1px solid #cc3300; padding: 0px; background: #ffff00; color: #cc3300;"> ... hablo ... 18:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Pablo. Thanks for all of that information.  According to their own site, they were advisors on business acquisitions in 2007 alone at half year point totalling over $100 Billion dollars.  http://www.greenhill.com/index.php?option=com_selectedtransactions&target=1&Itemid=139

Obviously, these guys get no benefit by advertising on Wikipedia and I'm sure that they would prefer to have as low a profile to the general public, media, and regulators, as possible. Firms like this often have Private Equity funds as clients, which are essentially hedge funds which keep an even lower profile; and whose investment horizon is sometimes longer term than traditional hedge funds. Some hedge funds tend to have short term trading strategies. Obviously, "reliable source" is subject to the eye of the beholder. I have read that a subjects own press can be used "against them" but it is not supposed to be used to self advertise. Well, I am not affiliated with them. So I guess there is some line drawn between self advertisement and the public's right to know. Unfortunately, a lot of the information about the large and powerful money powers in this country is not free, but you have to pay top dollar to get it. By the way, selling financial information on the stock market, who is doing what deals, etc. is how New York City's billionaire mayor Michael Bloomberg made his fortune. I'll see what else I can find out about Greenhill & Co., LLC. Knowsetfree 20:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"helpme" requested on appropriateness of reverting Greenhill & Company article deletion
helpme
 * I've done some more research on the preceding topic, and apparantly Greenhill & Co. is a public company listed on the NYSE symbol GHL. Would financial filings with the SEC be considered "reliable source"?  According to 2006 financial statements the firm: 1. had revenues of almost $300 million or $1.7Million per employee 2. Employees own the majority of shares 3. Their return on equity is 87% which trounces the DOW.  4. The firm specifically claims that their industry competitive advantage is that they have no conflict of interest problem as merchant bankers.  Wouldn't a wiki article be warranted on these guys given their prominence? Knowsetfree 21:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Try WP:DRV. Andre (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) It appears that it was deleted as advertising, which means that it was likely not very well balanced. I would suggest that you create a sandbox article and get it well referenced with both positive and critical information.  After that, you can get someone to help you move it back into main space. --After Midnight 0001 00:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It has always been obvious that the article was deleted as alleged advertising after being flagged for speedy deletion. I entered a {notSoFast} flag (don't remember exact name) and attempted to initiate discussion here, on the article's talk page, and on the flagging users page. There was never any discussion as to the merits of the article, as far as I know, only a comment by the initial flagger something along the lines that it was 'out of his hands'. Please read the prior entry to my talk page for the full detail. It was a short new article, not much more than a stub, so I don't see how it was genuinely advertising. Also, it seems to me that After Midnight's advice does not conform with wiki polciy. I don't think that NPOV policy means that you must include "critical" information. If I am not aware of something critical about a firm, does not negate the relevance of the firm to wiki users. My {helpme} request was, and continues to be, related solely to the points of whether the financial documents filed by a public company listed on the NYSE is a wiki reliable source, and whether a firm which handled over a $100 billion of M & A business was significant enough to warrant a wiki article. But thanks to "After Midnight" for the information on the sandbox, if I get the time I might try to reconstruct the original article. Unfortunately, as mentioned before, the article and all edit history disappeared without a trace, which seems odd to me. Knowsetfree 01:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is normal for deletion, however if you take the case to WP:DRV, it can be undeleted. Some administrators are willing to give you a copy of the old article - if you ask the deleting admin nicely, you could get the old source, which you can base the rewrite off. If you need any more help, feel free to ask more. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, the record of deletion is available at Special:Log/delete. You may just have to browse through a couple pages. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Matt. I've started the process and informed the admin who flagged the page for speedy deletion. I also pointed out new facts that show the company's significance. Knowsetfree 01:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Lawyers & Law Firms Found Guilty of Legal Misconduct
I have nominated lawyers & law firms found guilty of legal misconduct for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. LeSnail (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Entities or Persons committing SEC Violations
Category:Entities or Persons committing SEC Violations, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Private Equity & Hedge Funds with financial ties to politicians
Category:Private Equity & Hedge Funds with financial ties to politicians, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Provide a reference for Weil Gotshal edits or they will be deleted
New user Lamro made a lot of entries into the Weil Gotshal article, which I have been watching after first seeing anons vandalize the page by deleting unflattering entries related to facts that were never disputed. To be fair, I'm giving this new user the opportunity to substantiate his basis for the numerous entries before I delete them. Just in case user User :Lamro disappears from Wiki like Milleri did, I've copied my entry to Lamro's Talk page here:

Hello Lamro, welcome to Wikipedia. You have made substantial edits to the Weil Gotshal article, but you have not followed the Wiki policy of providing a factual reference to substantiate your edits to the page. Remember, we have no way of knowing that you have any basis to know any facts about the firm;,that is why wiki has a policy requiring a reliable source to back up an edit. I'm giving you the opportunity to substantiate your edits regarding your entries such as (list of Community Service),(list of Recognitions and Rankings) (list of Practice Areas) ,(list of Key People), (list of Notable Deals and Cases) before I delete them. Thanks, and if you have a question or comment please feel free to comment on (My Talk page) where I have been tracking Weil Gotshal article vandalism and I'll have an entry for this topic: "Provide a reference for Weil Gotshal edits or they will be deleted" Knowsetfree (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC) OK, Lamro, I'll give you a few days. Knowsetfree (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Knowsetfree


 * This is Lamro.
 * I didn't disappear from Wiki. I am around -- watching, reading, contributing, editing, and enjoying. As for Weil Gotshal, it was quite a long time ago, so I don't exactly remember what I did. To the best of my knowledge, I only edited and formatted the material that was uploaded by somebody else, for the text was messy. I always try to follow the rules, and if you check my other articles, you will see that I provide references and external links to substantiate them.


 * Sorry, if I did smth wrong.
 * Wiki forever
 * Lamro (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 *  Hi Lamro. Glad you are still around, Wiki is most value with more editors, we all just need to follow the Wiki policy.  It seemed like there were a lot of controversies regarding your editing but that was just based on a hasty scan of your talk page.  The set of edits you did which are in question were all done last month which doesn't seem like "so long ago", particularly in Wiki history.  Not saying you did something wrong, just trying to find out your factual basis for making the edits.  (Actually, a minor thing wrong is you created a new section on my talk page after one was already created and name "Provide a reference for Weil Gotshal edits or they will be deleted" so I moved that to the indented paragraph above - just add a colon ::character for each level of indent.) Did you intend to remove the entire "Pro Bono" section.  If so, why was that?  FYI, I've started a new section on the Weil Gotshal talk page trying to find the editor who added the achievements, community service, notable clients and industry standings rankings sections looking for the basis for presenting those asserted facts.
 * Knowsetfree (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, to those who wish the extensive unreferenced conduct on the [Weil Gotshal] page to remain. Put up or shut up. Either provide reliable references to the awards, practise areas, and etc or they will be deleted. --Knowsetfree (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

List of U.S. Marines
Hello Knowsetfree, how are you doing? Thank you for adding the name of Dr. Sowell to the list, however the name will be removed unless you provide a reliable verifiable source (as is required by policy) that will proof his notability and service in the Corps. The reason that we are requiring sources is because a lot of people in the past have added names of non-notables and a few of us had to go through a lot of trouble of verifing the additions. We, who manage the list, will appreciate your cooperation. Thank you and take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Tony. Did you click on the link to Dr. Sowell's own wiki Article?  Many of the notable marines have their own wiki page, and they are listed there.  I would have thought the longstanding fact in his article there was enough.  Also, Dr. Sowell's publisher has a bio on him here: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/archive.shtml but you have to click on BIO there is not a direct link.    Let my try a quick Google.  OK, here are three hits on the first page:  http://www.creators.com/opinion/thomas-sowell-about.html, http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0684864649/ref=sib_fs_top?ie=UTF8&p=S00G&checkSum=8mX09UYSa2Gw1y%2FaEN115soxmn92l%2FDLkv1afBLAqM4%3D#reader-link,

, and http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/1990/09/10/86090/index.htm Let me know if that info is OK? Knowsetfree (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

EASTLAW
Please note that EASTLAW has made arbirary and ridiculous if not malicious editions and DELETIONS to other articles in addiition to yours. Eastlaw IGNORES the well-establsihed standards that we use for our entires from MARQUIS, a pre-eminent publsiher of biographical information who has DECADES of publsihing bios--JudicialWatch (talk) 06:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of William H. Simon
A tag has been placed on William H. Simon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. csaribay (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Misleading and unethical entry to Weil Gotshal article
After having warned long in advance and requesting some back up information or discussion, I have deleted the following incredibly false statement which was attributed as a quote to a judge. The impression to Wiki readers would have been that one judge ruled counter to the prevailing opinion, in a manner that would have characterized the atcual ruling as to the impropriety and unethical behavior of Weil, Gotshal & Manges as having been disputed by the courts. Such suggestion that reasonable minds could have disagreed is not supported by any facts in the referenced article. First, the quoted text was not a quote by the hired lawyer John Martin, the text was [Weil Gotshal]'s own argument in which they argued they were not unethical. Second, John Martin was not acting as a judge. He was acting as an individual hired (Yes, for money) to deliver an opinion. Here is the deleted quote:

Former Southern District of New York Judge John Martin stated that Weil Gotshal's "lawyers conducted themselves in a fully appropriate and professional manner."

By the way, the opinion of John Martin was either unpersuasive, or addtional facts before the actual sitting Judge were so strong (or a combination of the two) that the sitting Judge made his remarks on Weil Gothsal's misconduct. This type of false presentation and characterization of facts upon Wiki, if done before a court, would be not just unethical but also criminal. Arguably, courts have been extremely reluctant to refer such conduct for criminal investigation, notwithstanding statutory duties requiring same. My point is just that here we have yet another abuse of the truth, in this case on Wikipedia, in order to pump up or deflect negative press on a BigLaw firm.

FYI, Wiki readers who are interested in the subject of Legal Corruption may find the new article on well known Columbia professor William H. Simon and referenced materials therein. Prof Simon is working against legal experts who write bogus legal opinions for hire merely to serve the interests of clients seeking to escape criminal and or civil repercussions by presenting the "we acted on the advice of counsel" defense. --Knowsetfree (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Continuing vandalism to Weil Gotshal page
Once again, we have an anon - this time 72.86.41.177 - who deletes the Controversies section from this firms page. It is both ironic and telling that this anonymous user cites the wiki policy WP:SOAP - it almost indicates that this content editor knows what she is doing and that the edit is appropriate. But we find that this user didn't bother to register, or log in, or both. The SOAP policy is a two edged sword, and articles are not meant to be advertising. Prior attempts to eliminate the controversies section, including by an admitted member of the firm, were eventually overruled by senior wiki editors. High profile people and organizations invariable have a controversies section. Please stop censoring wiki, people have a right to knowledge. --Knowsetfree (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Pontificalibus (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pontificalibus, your name sure is fitting. The article was completely referenced. Did you read what I wrote? Were the cites removed by a vandal? There are plenty of sources for the story about the attorney who crossed the line and engaged in serious crime along side his clients. Unfortunately I don't have time now to redo the research. Too bad, wiki readers deserve to know about this phenomenon. --Knowsetfree (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Bergrin.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Bergrin.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 20:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Weil Gotshal vandalism
What is it about Weil Gotshal that the subject would inspire so many anonymous vandals? 2 October 2009 Knowsetfree (talk | contribs) (10,127 bytes) (Undid revision 313707065 by 173.71.209.76 (talk) Recurring anonymous vandals - issues settled in favor of disclosure) --Knowsetfree (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As in deep sea fishing: we got "One On" in re Weil Gotshal vandalism
Let's take a look at the contributions of this anon user [|173.71.209.76]. It is interesting how this anonymous editor is so interested in such a narrow subject range and purpose: to eliminate attorney misconduct from wikipedia. That is to say, not to reduce the instances of attorney misconduct, but merely to censor any mention of it. It is sad how this anon violates many more wiki policies than they incorrectly cite when he/she undertakes his/her censoring operations. User 173.71.209.76, you can't bounce back and forth with reverts. You must talk first. This is "Wiki 101" here. Also, your associates have tried to silence the misconduct of these law firms in the past, in particular the conduct of Weil, Gotshal & Manges when a federal judge fined them millions of dollars for lying to the Court as they failed to disclose their relationship with Bear Stearns at the same time they provided Leslie Fay with advice that would impact Bear Stearns. This topic has already been resolved in fair of the valid disclosure of true facts. Speaking of disclosure, isn't it unethical for a member of the bar to make any form of advertisement without disclosing a clear notice to the effect "attorney advertisement"? Well, once again, I will go through the steps. Maybe, we'll ultimately end up with and administrator locking the page, or at least just the misconduct section for weil gotshal.

* 04:49, 21 October 2009 (hist | diff) Weil, Gotshal & Manges ‎ (undo changes violating wikipedia policy; an encyclopedia is not a personal soapbox.) (top) (Tag: section blanking) * 11:16, 18 October 2009 (hist | diff) McCarran-Ferguson Act ‎ (clean up) (top) * 03:16, 29 September 2009 (hist | diff) Edward F. Cox ‎ (replace incorrect amlaw ranking with correct ranking) * 11:36, 18 September 2009 (hist | diff) Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison ‎ (→Notable alumni) * 03:08, 14 September 2009 (hist | diff) Weil, Gotshal & Manges ‎ (→Recognition) * 03:06, 14 September 2009 (hist | diff) Weil, Gotshal & Manges ‎ (→Recognition) (Tag: references removed) * 02:38, 14 September 2009 (hist | diff) Talk:Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy ‎ * 02:21, 14 September 2009 (hist | diff) Attorney misconduct ‎ (→External Links & Articles: not a wiki page -- as anyone who knows what an encyclopedia is would know.) (top) * 01:49, 14 September 2009 (hist | diff) Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman ‎ (→Misconduct: WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:WEIGHT, WP SOAP also out of date and not encyclopedia worthy.) (top) (Tag: section blanking) * 01:35, 14 September 2009 (hist | diff) Weil, Gotshal & Manges ‎ (→Controversies: WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:WEIGHT) (Tag: section blanking) * 01:35, 14 September 2009 (hist | diff) Weil, Gotshal & Manges ‎ (→Malpractice: delete because no cite. supposed link doesn't work. also WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:WEIGHT)

Allegations of Vandalism and other Wikipedia rules
Hi Knowsetfree. Thank you for joining wikipedia and trying to improve it. I notice you have made allegations of vandalism. Sometimes it is confusing to users of wikipedia so let me try to help you. There are some wikipedia rules that would be useful for you learn.

"Vandalism" is a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism. Good-faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia are not vandalism, even if they are misguided or ill-considered. Content disputes are not vandalism.

Some material — sometimes even factually correct material — does not belong on Wikipedia, and removing it is not vandalism. Check to make sure that the addition was in line with Wikipedia standards, before restoring it or reporting its removal as vandalism.

Knowsetfree, you really try to avoid the word 'vandal'. In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Knowsetfree, you should also know that you should try to comment on the content and substance of the edits, instead of making personal comments.

Knowsetfree, do not feel bad. Certain users of wikipedia get confused as to what is vandalism and what is encyclopedic, and what the wikipedia standards are, and you can be a valuable contributing member to wikipedia after you learn these rules.

Antisoapbox (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Antisoapbox. I'm surprised that you are welcoming me to Wikipedia.  First, if you had done any sort of research into the topic in question, which is recurring vandalism to the Weil Gotshal article, then you would know that I've been a member for quite a while.  In fact, it seems possible that you are either the "new" member who first anonymously deleted the content, or you are a newly registered member whose focused conduct on Wikipedia seems largely focused on purging unflattering content from articles regard law firms.  What was your first edit as a registered user?  Had you done the minimal amount of research into the issue, vandalism to the same article, then you would have clearly seen that 1) I've been a member for a number of years who contributed to a number of articles and 2) that the topic of vandalism to this particular law firm's article has been a recurring, almost periodic issue.  Yes, I do agree that the information which some number of anonymous users have been attempting to delete is unflattering to the firm.  But the specific issues have been extensively talked about, looked at by a number of experienced editors, and supported as relevant.  I must give you credit for adding text to my talk page which for the most part appears polite.  To be clear, my use of the word "vandalism" was intentional, and reflects the periodic nature of the attempts at censorship, that the acts have usually been by Anons and other single purpose editors, and that the attempts at censorship were done in one or more instances by admitted persons associated with the law firm.  Are you employed by  any law firm whose unflattering content your are censoring? -- Knowsetfree (talk) 02:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Knowsetfree, it appears that you still need to read some of the wiki rules instead of making personal attacks. Specifically, "Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism. Good-faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia are not vandalism, even if they are misguided or ill-considered. Content disputes are not vandalism." WP:VAN  These are wiki rules that you should learn. Also, "Some material — sometimes even factually correct material — does not belong on Wikipedia, and removing it is not vandalism. Check to make sure that the addition was in line with Wikipedia standards, before restoring it or reporting its removal as vandalism." WP:NOTVAND  Also, "Good-faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia are not vandalism, even if they are misguided or ill-considered. Content disputes are not vandalism. They should be dealt with by following the dispute resolution procedure. . . . If a user is adding biased content or you disagree with the information added, that doesn't mean the editor is vandalising." See WP:CUV  Also "Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any edits that might have been made in good faith.  This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Instead of calling the person who made the edits a "vandal", discuss your concerns with them. Comment on the content and substance of the edits, instead of making personal comments." See WP:Vandalism.  Knowsetfree, you should especially study that last rule.  When you learn these rules I hope you can contribute to Wikipedia.  Good luck with your studies. Antisoapbox (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Antisoapbox, Thank you for participating in the Talk. If you had done so before you deleted the truth about Weil Gotshal than we would have saved each others time.  But let's be fair and not jump to any conclusion.  Do you agree that the content you deleted is true?  If not, then let's discuss it.  I see that the world vandalism makes you feel bad.  I can understand that noone wants to be identified publicly as a vandal.  Have you read the extensive history of similar censoring edits to the Weil Gotshal "Controversies" section?  If not before you became a registered Wiki editor and deleted the law firm's unflattering history, perhaps you read the checkered edit history after I reverted your edit and directed your attention to it.  IMHO, that is a prerequisite to your continuing in the discussion.  If you disagree and believe that you need not read about the history of censoring edits (strikingly similar to yours) then simple say so and please explain why.  Let us consider the topic of pattern.  I think that most people would be able to discern what computer scientists, textile technologists, and organized crime prosecutors call a pattern.  Do you agree that a pattern of anonymous censoring to an article is vandalism?  If not, please explain and we can talk.  Thanks again for being arguably polite in your continuing talk.  I'll choose to interpret your offers of assistance to me as genuine and sincere as opposed to condescending and presumptive.  However, I need not view your actions consistent with the pattern of censorship as "good faith".  Particularly in light of your continuing failure to address and discuss the troubled edit history of the article, even now subsequent to your unilateral edit (also without discussion).  If you answer one question for us, Will you divulge if you have any relationship with Weil Gotshal or any of the other law firms for which you edit articles?  I'll divulge that I have none.  --Knowsetfree (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Global Warming - censoring Debate
There is no question that Global Warming is for some an emotional subject. But it just doesn't make sense that the Debate and skepticism section there would be censured. Isn't that were reports of skepticism belong. If a petition signed by over 9,000 PhD's isn't newsworthy, than nothing is newsworthy. The actual scientists names appear on the website. User User:Atmoz deleted my entry of cited references to the petition. My understanding of the Global Warming issue is that according to Al Gore and many vocal AGW proponents, there is substantial "unanimity" because "over 2,500 of the worlds top scientists are in agreement". But what about 9,000 PhD's who are not in agreement. I would think that it was newsworthy. Hopefully Atmoz will do the right thing and discuss this issue on the articles talk page, as I requested of him. -- Knowsetfree (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is what was deleted:

Global Warming Petition Project

As of December 15, 2009 a total of more than 31,400 persons with relevant scientific credentials of at least a bachelors degree have signed a petition in opposition to the theory of man made global warming stating:[134]

“''There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.''”

The signors to this petition include over 9,020 PhD recipients.[135] -- Knowsetfree (talk) 06:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, to Knowsetfree, Response to your query to my User:jlancaster (talk) page: Yes, I am the same Justin Lancaster. And yes, I did sign the statement in question in 1994. That retraction was coerced by a SLAPP suit. Although I was confident I would win at trial, my family and resources could not withstand the pressure from two national law firms funded behind-the-scenes by sources larger than Singer. Unfortunately, Massachusetts had not yet passed its version of the SLAPP legislation. Had I this piece of history to repeat, then I would not have signed that retraction, as I had never made any false statements. In 2006, I fully rescinded the 1994 statement and published the evidence that supported my original opinions of S. Fred Singer. User:jlancaster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.132.70 (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Verified falsehood in the Global Warming Petition Project
No good deed goes unpunished. It is really too bad that some people are so in love with an ideology that they would stake their names on promulgating a falsehood. And I don't mean people disagreeing on theories, or religion, or art. I mean simple things like facts. So I would have thought someone would quickly back away from a falsehood they promote, when their own web citation proves the falsehood. Could this really be an honest mistake? This exchange with William M. Connolley about his deletions to the Global Warming Petition Project and his comments on the article's talk page hopefully ends quickly after William re-reads his own cited reference:

Interesting to note that the project site seems to have changed. Until recently [9] it said "This is the website that completely knocks the wind out of the enviro's sails. See over 17,000 scientists declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever". All that trash now seems to have quietly disappeared William M. Connolley 21:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi William. Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia, but please try to remain civil. While you may genuinely feel that other blogs and websites are "trash", you should not "trash talk" anyone on wikipedia, and you should also not misrepresent the facts. Unfortunately, you clearly misrepresent the facts in your comment above. (and perhaps you authored the false hoods which I just removed from the article, describe here 10)


 * You are clearly trying to apply the words of one of thousands of websites which comments about the Global Warming Petition Project, and then falsely attribute those comments to the actual petition site itself. That would be like filming a NY Yankees fan who screamed "Red Socks Suck" and then claiming that the New York Yankees has officially declared that the Boston Red Socks "Suck". Obviously, such falsehoods have no business on wikipedia whose aspirations are high. Your falsehood is clearly demonstrated by your own citation which you unsuccessfully use to prove your point. Look at your archived web site. It is clearly introducing the website:


 * This is the website[11] that ...


 * Clearly, the sentence "This is the website" can only be read in context, which shows that the word "website" is highlighted as a link. Clicking on the link brings you to the actual website. The actual website is very clear, very concise, and very polite. Presumably, if you are able to navigate wikipedia as an editor you have at least the bare minimum of knowledge to understand a webpage, links, and how articles and commentary often references other sites. How are we supposed to continue with the assumption that you are editing in good faith when you miss the simple truth and write falsehoods with the obvious intent to denigrate the petition? Please recheck your sources and by all means talk about it here, in a civil manner. I would like to think that your posting was simple human error. -- Knowsetfree (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunealy user William M. Connolley merely reverts edits and ignores all talk pointing out his clear falsehood. And his justification for his edits consists merely of the phrase "You're wrong". I have no doubt that the falsehood itself will ultimately be removed from wikipedia. And while I don't want to condescend, I got to wonder aloud if we could possibly bring his level of discourse up to that which wiki editors ought to use with each other? --Knowsetfree (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

On Carly Fiorina
Hey, I ran accross this question you left in an edit summary:. To answer it, look at Wikipedia:Common names. Basically, articles are named after the most common or most recognizable name of the subject, thus the article is located at Bill Clinton, not at William Jefferson Clinton (though the second redirects to the first). Thus, the Carly Fiorina article should be left at Carly Fiorina since that is the name she is most commonly called. -- Jayron  32  04:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. --Knowsetfree (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"Civility on the Global Warming Petition Project / Oregon Petition talk page"
Please comment on the content, not the contributor. Your comment here obliquely accuses your fellow volunteers of acting in bad faith, which is unacceptable. You may be blocked if you continue in this vein. If you have a personal issue with an editor, please raise it at Wikiquette alerts or pursue other methods of dispute resolution. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks 2/0 for your attention to the Global Warming Petition Project / Oregon Petition talk page. This is a preliminary response and I'm going to reread again and try to determine what the "oblique accusation" is.  My understanding of logic and mathematical proof is that in order to reach a conclusion say C that may depend upon the truth of d, e, f and the falsehood of g, h, i that establishing the truth or falsehood of any of the predicates  d,e,f,g,h,i are both useful and necessary.  Additionally, pointing out logical fallacy is usefull and, at least in theory, a most efficient method to resolve debate.  1) Could you let me know what editor(s) I accused?  2) Could you also describe how "obliquely" should be interpreted with respect to an accusation, and in my discourse in particular?  I want to let you know that your warning to me is viewed in good faith, and not as a threat or an attempt to hinder participation on any politically sensitive topics.  It's just that I'm not getting the relevance of the comment on the content, not the contributor Wikipedia:BLOCK warning with respect to my comment.  At the same time, any policy which is equally applied to all parties and raises participation and enjoyment for all of us volunteers is a good thing.  By all means, please continue to monitor the originating page or this talk page.  I have also invited other editors over there to participate here with respect to the topic of civility, and I'm going to edit the section title that you created on my talk page "Civility" to be "Civility on the Global Warming Petition Project / Oregon Petition talk page".  Hopefully we can keep the originating article talk page discussion focused on the content, as you and wiki policy suggest.  --Knowsetfree (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Specifically, you stated The only arguably positive for the name "Oregon Petition" is for those who would like to obfuscate the meaning of the petition, or to continue ad hominem attacks ... This is slightly different from stating The only reason you other editors do not agree with me is because you hate OISM and want to hide the OP and its results from the Wikipedia-reading public, but the effect is much the same. The rest of your comment is basically productive, but that part veers off into commenting on the other participants in that discussion. Please do let me know if I am misconstruing what you have written. Also, editing section titles to better reflect a discussion is generally fine per the Talk page guidelines, and this one in particular is perfectly legitimate (though thank you for mentioning it). - 2/0 (cont.) 06:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi 2/0, Well at least we are partially in agreement. We agree that what I actually said is different than your "paraphrase", the only difference being the extent of the difference.  Thanks for asking, the answer is "yes, you have misconstrued what [I] have written".  Specifically, the word "hate" is over the top and there was only one editor who chimed in and his argument was "common known as" which IMHO had been clearly refuted.  To be sure, the "Oregon Petition" nickname appears focused withing the webspace of POV sites and AGW supporters, the same webspace which bears the burden of proving the "commonly known as" argument.

But there is a valid question, could my statement have been improved? Perhaps I could have said something like "A negative consequence of the name "Oregon Petition" is that it obfuscates and misleads as to the purpose of the petition, the actual name of petition, and it's alleged sponsorship.  Furthermore, the nickname Oregon Petition parrots the talking points of numerous POV websites and persons whose obvious bias is in favor of AGW ideology and which often blatantly employ the logical fallacy of ad hominem attacks against 6 persons, and the employer of one of them, from among the 31,000 actual signatories of the petition.  Ascribing to the nickname preferred by these detractors is fundamentally POV."


 * However, employing your same "paraphrase method", which unfortunately I can't avoid identifying as the logical fallacy commonly known as the strawman, unnamed or subsequently self identified editors could still appear saying "Hey, I believe in the argument you opposed so therefore you are calling me X and a 'hater' and are being uncivil to me". Since you have looked at the article, I would like to point out that it is replete with ad hominem attacks against one (or more) of the founders, and his employer.  This is utterly senseless when the article is about a petition, succinctly stated in a few sentences, to which well over 30,000 degreed graduates in the science, math, and engineering fields have put their names.  In addition to any response that you are welcome to provide on the "civility issue", Would you please consider commenting on the current ad hominem attacks in the article or how that issue would be addressed in the articles talk page?  --Knowsetfree (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why create an account?
The abovelinked page lays out the benefits to registering an account. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 22:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi 2/0, your specious reference to wiki policy on account creation is noted. But much more important and relevant is your still pending "Hater" allegation and threat against me, which I'll remind you is the talk section you created on my page here.  If you are withdrawing your comment, simply say so.  There is no need to create trivial sections on my talk page, when such a serious allegation by you remains unproven, unresolved, and unanswered. --Knowsetfree (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * At Talk:Hockey stick controversy you suggested that an unregistered editor might like to get an account. Since one of the benefits to a collaborative project is that in many cases someone else has already put the effort into presenting a point, I meant this to be taken as a friendly heads up that this page exists. You may find it helpful in welcoming future unregistered editors, or you may not. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 23:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
 Ron h jones (Talk) 00:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meets Its Own Climategate article re User:William_M._Connolley
Of the numerous wiki articles to which I've contributed, there may be no topic more politically sensitive than those having to do with Global Warming. To be sure, people have opinions. But many also have careers. Having just run into this article I was both impressed and relieved. It is impressive that Wikipedia gets notice in large publications, but the article was covering a topic with which I had some personal experience. It seemed like William had lots to say about the subject, and when I deleted clearly false material (false by its own cited reference) William refused to WP:Talk and responded solely "You're Wrong". I was relieved when I learned more about User:William_M._Connolley's objectives and conduct: ' All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn't like the subject of a certain article, he removed it -- more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred -- over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley's global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia's blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.' Can't say that I'm surprised, other than the fact that he has edited over five thousand articles. Geez, who pays him? He's got to have a day job, if wikipedia is not it... But there is more... On William' his talk page I just learned that his administrator privileges were revoked. Also interesting is that User:Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris chose to publicly impugn the wikipedia arbitration committee for their decision against William:
 * Hardly surprising that arbcom wants to keep their mess as far from view as possible. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk)

Like William, User User:Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris has had some interesting things to say about my editing with respect to articles related to global warming. The American Spectator article directed me to a Canadian publication called the Financial Post by Lawrence Solomon with an article entitled "Wikipedia’s climate doctor" - none other than our User:William_M._Connolley. I had just read part of a book by Solomon called "The Deniers" and didn't that he had stuff online for free so every cloud has its silver lining. Perhaps the biggest problem is that Wikipedia gets the black eye on this. From the American Standard:
 * But with the leaked emails known as Climategate more people are beginning to see that deception, ::not science, has been their principal weapon. And we see also that Wikipedia has lent itself to ::that deception.


 * and


 * [From an academic] "I will not accept any references from Wikipedia in any paper I review ::from here on out until this is resolved."


 * "I see that a banner ad is appearing on most Wikipedia pages asking for 'donations'…. I think ::I'll contribute to more worthwhile charities."

Hopefully Wikipedia survives with as many editors in contributing in WP:good faith and getting the financial donations that they need. But in my opinion, the general public should not put all of the blame just on Wikipedia. The Global Warming industry has tremendous influence on all main stream media as well and Wikipedia might be one the first places where the issues get treated fairly. --Knowsetfree (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, I hope you don't object when I say how much I enjoyed the scrupulosity of that article William M. Connolley (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi William M. Connolley, could you explain what you meant when you said "I enjoyed the scrupulosity"? --Knowsetfree (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't you read ? I did - great fun. I like fairy stories William M. Connolley (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Incidentally - re the PA of yours that got removed - you might find it helpful to read  - there are clearly many things here you don't understand William M. Connolley (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi William M. Connolley, actually it is me that is enjoying the attention of and discourse with such a famous person as yourself. But specifically, could you please explain how you "enjoyed scrupulosity".  Is this Self-deprecation on your behalf, or schadenfreude? --Knowsetfree (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

NPA on Talk:Hockey stick controversy
I've removed the personal attack here per WP:NPA. Comment on content not on editors. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Kim D. Petersen, I disagree strongly. But I won't revert without first giving you a chance to WP:Talk.  Please let me know whether you reached your opinion that my post was a "personal attack" with or without your own knowledge of the main stream press reporting of "Wikipedia's Climate Doctor" and "Wikipedia Meets Its Own ClimateGate"|.  If you were aware, can you describe why you believe User:William_M._Connolley's publicly reported conduct is not relevant in the context used?  If you weren't, what is your opinion now?  --Knowsetfree (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh my goodness Kim, the plot thickens. Did you know that our guy User:William_M._Connolley is not just a wiki editor, but that he has his very own wiki article.  I had no clue that William was featured in an article and WP:Good faith forces me to assume that neither did you.  The circular logic, Catch 22 ramifications are significant.  Do you see the flawed logic that would hold William the public figure, both within and outside wikipedia, as beyond factual comment when such facts show his misconduct when William the prolific and biased editor has free realm?  The general public may not be surprise learning that William's livelihood has been based upon the public believing and/or fearing AGW theory, and that he has also been simulataneously pursuing a Green Party political career for several years.  Wikipedia's senior administration should be surprised and needs to figure out a way to address this abuse.  Shouldn't basic concepts of conflict of interest apply here?  Whatever I have said which has alerted to the issue of Williams conduct and bias, it needs to be trebled.  --Knowsetfree (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Since Kim has edited that article it would be natural to assume that he knows it exists. To find out who has edited a given article, you press the "history" tab at the top William M. Connolley (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

General sanctions/Climate change probation
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation.

To the above boilerplate I'll add this:

Kim Dabelstein Petersen above refers to this personal attack. In addition to this you have also made personal attacks here (your user talk page is not to be used for personal attacks).

Please stop making personal attacks. It's okay for you to use talk pages to raise issues with the articles, but it is not permissible to use them in a way that worsens the atmosphere and attacks others--whether Wikipedians or not. Further attacks may lead to a request for enforcement in the Climate change probation or, in egregious cases, a request for direct sanction --TS 08:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If you (or Kim Dabelstein or 0/2) have a problem with my relating facts about the issue in a manner which I believe was both civil and NPOV, then take whatever action you deem appropriate to stop it. Let's tee this issue up for the highest possible administrative review by Wikipedia. Maybe you are right, maybe a central tenant of Wikipedia is to hide all internal issues which may negatively affect donations. I disagree, and believe that truth is the ultimate goal of Wikipedia. It also appears frivolous for you to characterize the factual reporting of Mr. Connolley's conduct as reported by outside media, in the context of encouraging new editors victimized by his very conduct, to register and contribute in a positive NPOV manner. The general public needs to know whether the official stance of Wikipedia is to censor the public media's coverage of the conduct of User:William_M._Connolley or to allow civil discussion about it in the context of improving Wikipedia and the atmosphere for its volunteer editors. If I get blocked for suggesting the importance of this, then the general public will have the benefit of understand the official policy of Wikipedia. By the same token, the official Wikipedia stance may have something to say about those who may be deemed to as attempting to censor the User:William_M._Connolley issue. --Knowsetfree (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi TS, please don't make threats. If you believe that my conduct is bad, by all means please bring the conduct to the attention of administrators.    I strongly disagree with your presumption that Wikipedia policy, or result of its policies, is that the conduct of its editors as reported in the press is excluded from talk pages and I resent any attempts to censor the issue.  There is no question that the conduct of User:William_M._Connolley within wikipedia has become the subject of media attention'', outside of wikipedia.  In fact, as I searched Google just now for the links to the first two articles from mainstream publications using his name and "abuse" turned up an exhaustive list of hits.
 * Btw, Kim is a guy  SPLETTE &#32;:]&#32;How's my driving? 02:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't take it as a threat, Knowsetfree. I won't warn you again, so if somebody subsequently asks for further action, or an uninvolved admin takes direct action, I won't be involved in that chain of events except for having warned you once that it might happen if you continue.


 * If you have concerns about any actions on Wikipedia that may not be ethical or that contravene its policy or Foundation policy, then as a veteran editor of some three years standing you know that the thing to do is to follow dispute resolution, not post repeatedly about it on article talk pages. If you didn't know that, now you do.  Remember that the path of dispute resolution isn't optional, it's the only way to pursue these matters on this wiki. No personal attacks. --TS 10:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Will any of the editors in this section who profess a distaste for "personal attacks" come to my defense in a similar circumstance - even if we exclude "global warming" related articles?  2) Let's say that Bernie Madoff contributes to wikipedia, is all discussion of his actions prohibited from wikipedia?  Would Madoff only be allowed to contribute to articles that are not related to fraud, securities, investments, and Ponzi Schemes?  To be clear, I'm not attempting to equate the outrageous frauds of Madoff with any editor, but I would really appreciate some discussion with policy making administrators on the question in general.  At what point does the conduct of an editor itself become newsworthy for wiki content, or wiki discussion?  Would we allow Presidnets Bush or Obama contribute to articles then censor any discussion of their conduct?

In the context of wikipedia, What happens when an editor is notified of falsehoods he entered and he is politely invited to remove or provide sources that could prove his position, the editor instead engages in uncivil behavior? -- Knowsetfree (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Gender pronouns
FYI, in this edit you repeatedly refer to User:KimDabelsteinPetersen as "she". Kim is in fact male. You should be careful about the use of gender pronouns to refer to editors unless you know who they are. Cheers, Oren0 (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I did not know that. The vast majority of 'Kim's I know are male and I've only "known of" one male.  Perhaps there was a pronoun conveying Kim's gender in his comments, I don't recall having read it and assumed she as appropriate.  I suppose that you are of the opinion that the assumption of masculine gender is appropriate when further information is not known?  Certainly there are a number of experts on gender issues who would take issue with that.  Your comment seems needlessly and inappropriately condescending.  Perhaps if the name was Bruce, or Michael it would not be so.  By the way, what is your opinion on the "Hockey Stick" graph used by Al Gore, whose fallacy is now widely enough recognized that it was even removed by the UN from their own climate change dogma?  --Knowsetfree (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lynn M. LoPucki


The article Lynn M. LoPucki has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No biographical sources, doesn't meet general notability guideline.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MrOllie (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey MrOllie, you are way off base trying to get Prof. LoPucki deleted. His words ring true, his research database is used by all academics, even those academics in the favor of the organized crime syndicates which are sucking the blood our of our economy.  I wasn't even on wiki to notice your futile PROD, thankfully someone else shot down your attempt at censorship.  --Knowsetfree (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Haven't heard anything back from MrOllie on his idea to delete LoPucki from wikipedia. Did some more research, and according to Harvard Law School Mr. LoPucki assembled the nationally recognized database on bankruptcy statistics which is used by nearly all academic researchers in the country dealing with the subject.  Sounds kind of important to me.  Wikipedia should not devolve into a popularity contest of people.  Let's not just have articles on Lady Ga Ga, Madonna, Michael Jordan & Rod Blagojevich.  Let's also have articles on genuinely important people.  Hopefully the LoPucki deletion issue is done.  --Knowsetfree (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Bankruptcy Pimp tries to paint himself as a Holocaust Survivor
I think that in France, it is a crime to deny or defame the Holocaust. Well, perhaps they could extradite the phony individual who is trying to remake the image of an admitted pimp into that of a Holocaust victim. Louis J. Posner is a dirty bankruptcy lawyer, and on top of that he ran a prostitution ring out of his "Hot Lap Dance Club". "I was present at the club on a nightly basis and was aware that a number of the dancers were regularly engaged in prostitution in the private rooms," Posner told Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Michael Obus. ...  He admitted to "personally engaging" in sexual conduct exchange for allowing dancers to work at the club. Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/03/23/2010-03-23_hot_lap_dance_club_owner_lou_posner_pleads_guilty_to_running_prostitution_ring_o.html#ixzz14uSzTm3O Everyone who cares about the importance of preserving the historical record of the significance of the heinous crimes of the Holocaust must not allow such a sleazy crook to try to enshroud himself in the public's mind as being innocent when he is nothing more than a predator. www.kindertransport.org should be made aware of this scheme to attempt tarnish their good name. --Knowsetfree (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Just happened to look at this topic again. It seems that the blatant self promotion, and disregard for truth and decency, has ended at least as far as they had been employed is the apparent self promotion page of Louis J. Posner, the lawyer who got a slap on the wrist for running a prostitution ring under the nose of Eliot Spitzer.  His bogus page is gone.  This is a success for Wikipedia!  Here's to hoping that Mr. Posner is not allowed to divert the noble purpose of Wikipedia again in the future.  And here's to hoping that other sleazy members of the "legal profession" are denied the same abuse of Wikipedia.  My thanks to fellow editors for seeing through his charade.  --Knowsetfree (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Dewey & Leboeuf
I hope you didn't interpret my edits in the History section as censorship. Wikipedia tries to avoid overbalanced focus on recent events, so I attempted to put (very important) recent developments into the context of the firm. It has over 100 years of history, so pushing 2012 events before all else seemed to lack balance. For comparisons, the corporate collapses of Lehman Brothers and Enron are referenced in the lead, but then full details come in the appropriate chronological section later on. Let's work together to ensure the Dewey developments are well covered, with these articles acting as examples. Harro5 02:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I very much interpreted your edits as censorship. No, the firm does not have over 100 years of history.  It had a few years of history.  Granted, Dewey Ballantine had a long history, but that firm ended in every sense including cultural and legal.  Dewey LeBoeuf was a very young firm, with a very short history.  And the criminal conduct at the heart of the firm is the big story, the important story.  I'm not going to tell you what to do, or how to live your life.  I'm not going to try to instill a desire for truth, justice, and what had been the "American Way" within other editors.  To be sure, the "financial system" in the U.S. is really a house of cards, and at the root of it is the Revolving Door relationship between the DOJ and private practice law firms who represent the financial criminal/corporations.  Yeah, much worse than the lawmakers who "jump ship" back and forth from dirty government to dirty business are the prosecutors who do the same.  Because laws don't mean anything if they are not enforced against friends (see John Corzine) and are over enforced against opponents.  So if you think that the revelation that one of these law firms operated as organized crime is "too much information" then good luck to you, and the nation.  A pure conscience does not guarantee wholesome outcomes. --Knowsetfree (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29
Hi. When you recently edited Dewey & LeBoeuf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stephen Davis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, corrected. --Knowsetfree (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Cyrus Vance Jr article self promotion and NPOV violations
Proposed edits: Remove "Initially" from Dominique Strauss-Kahn Case section which seems to imply that criticism is over. Also, to eliminate the evaluation by Bloomberg of Vance as "praise". The sole citation for this was an article which is far from praise. Bloomberg said that Vance's actions where "probably correct", which is tepid praise at best. Further, Bloomberg criticized Vance's use of the perp walk, which is a political act one would expect from a Nifong, not a good prosecutor. Point being, the cited reference is overblown in order to try to make Vance look good. The whole article seems to be Puffery and either needs to be heavily edited to limit only verifiable claims from trusted sources including accurate descriptions of controversial aspects of this politician/prosecutor's career, or have the article eliminated entirely. --Knowsetfree (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

 * I replied again, just FYI. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)