Hello and welcome to my talk page. I try to add relevent information that clearly shows both sides of an issue. If both sides cannot be shown than its better left unsaid. There are scores of highly partisan people on wiki that edit and/or vandalize the wiki entries of people on wikipedia every day. I try to repair this vandalism whenever I find it, but it is not easy. You will find that some people seem to be editing almost 24/7. I would not be surprised to learn that some people are paid to slant people's entries one way or another. Even though I know its a lost cause, I ask that people stay on the look out and try to keep it fair. Bachs

Welcome!

Hello, Bachs, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Karmafist 20:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jmurphy and NatusRoma, your edits indicate that you are both partisans , any post you make to my talk page will be immediately deleted. If you continue to mess with my page I will complain against you for harassment.

Please stop inserting large paragraphs about Tom DeLay and Ronnie Earle into articles about other people. There is no reason to say in articles about ARMPAC recipients that DeLay has not been found guilty, because the innocence of the accused is presumed. Nor is it relevant to the articles of other members of the Congress that Earle has prosecuted Kay Bailey Hutchinson or is making a movie. In fact, Earle's name doesn't need to be mentioned in those other articles, because those articles do not concern DeLay, Earle, or Earle's investigation of DeLay, except to the extent (already fairly described in those articles) that DeLay's indictment has led Democrats to call for the return of the money. Thanks. NatusRoma 01:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot include one side of an unproven allega tion and not include the other side. If you insist on playing "guilt by association" to members of congress based un unproven allegations by Ronnie Earle who is making a movie and who has engaged in politiocally motivated indictments before than both sides of the indictment story must be explained in order to have balance. Also - if the members are going to be critiqued for not returning the money the reason for not returning the money should be listed.

Again - you cannot whitewash the side of the indictment story and than use it to play the "guilt by association game" on the members bios, its unfair. Bachs 02:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. By the way, please make comments on my talk page. Democrats have called on many of the ARMPAC recipients to return the money they received from ARMPAC or to donate it to charity. You're right that nothing you have posted is untruthful, but that doesn't mean that it belongs in the article. The presumption of innocence in the American legal system does not need to be stated, and it's perfectly neutral to state that DeLay has been indicted. Because of this indictment, many Democrats have suggested that the ARMPAC recipients shouldn't keep the money they received. It's OK to say this in a way that doesn't imply the guilty of the recipients. In particular, the Chris Chocola article expressly denies that Chocola is suspected of wrongdoing. NatusRoma 02:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not playing games here. What I'm doing is making sure that articles discuss their subjects, not other people. A link to Earle's article would be appropriate: I'll edit Chris Chocola to show you what I mean. NatusRoma 02:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again no playing guilt by association on unproven charges - if I see it I will add the other side of the indictment story. Bachs

I'd be curious to hear why you think that this is a game. I'm not playing a game. A lengthy description of the other side of the story has no place in those articles.

• Two things: Please use edit summaries when making edits, and please don't place the "Under debate" heading on the article. You can use the {{disputed}} tag, though. NatusRoma 02:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is reasonable - I will change them to disputed that is reasonable - give me a few minutes to make the changes Bachs 02:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--- Roma I see that after we agreed to a reasonable compromise, sometime later you went back an edited them again with the same old partisan edits. Once again I have repaired them. This is a clear indication of why I no longer give you the good faith benefit of the doubt. Bachs

Reply[edit]

Natus Roma said - "A lengthy description of the other side of the story has no place in those articles." - So only one side of the story that implies guilt by association is proper huh .....

The operative word there was "lengthy". I thought that we had agreed to leave things disputed. By the way, we're both at three reverts on Chris Chocola, and near that for other articles (see WP:3RR)). Also, please sign your comments. NatusRoma 02:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--- Roma, you know that it only takes 1 line to slander someone, it takes 3 or 4 lines to refute that slander. You can define 3 or 4 lines as "lengthy" all you want but none the less the information that is posted is true and is not rationally disputable. You are simply doing what you have done so often, and that is to make partisan edits and look for any excuse to delete the facts and /or responce from the other side. Such behavior is not excusable. Bachs

3RR on Rob Simmons[edit]

You and I have each reverted Rob Simmons three times in the last 24 hours. If you revert again, you're liable to be blocked under the three revert rule (see WP:3RR). NatusRoma 03:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh so now its no lengthy..... it only takes one line to make an unproven allegation, it takes several to link to the informatyion that gives both sides.

I tell you what, if you can come up with a way to shorten it in a manner that gives all of the pertinent information I would be agreeable to that.

The best course of action would be to leave all references to Delay on Tom Delay's page until something is proven, this is the problem when partisans insist on posting unproven allegations causing guilt by association. Bachs 03:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of my changes here? NatusRoma 03:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit is unacceptable because you are leaving out the evidence....

What evidence have I left out? NatusRoma 03:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are several sentences criticizing Earle relevant to these congresspersons' articles? Tell me, why? That goes beyond balance, criticizing someone who has no relation to the article in question. NatusRoma 03:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary - Ronnie Earle has everything to do with the indictments against delay - he has made himself a part of the story with his conduct and his movie. Almost every press article that you see out there that references this also references part of the history of Ronnie Earle, so I am comfortable with the fact that I have a great deal of journalists the seem to agree with me. Bachs 03:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again I tell you my strongest argument which you keep on ignoring, and that is if you are going to bring up the DeLay indictments in Chris's bio, than it is only fair that both sides of the incictment story be told.

You cant say with any fairness, that Chris's friend Delay is a crook , but hey by no means do we think that Chris is a crook (wink wink , nod nod) ...... thats like printing "Hey XXXXX Person did not beat his wife last night" Bachs 03:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reasonable analogy. A better attempt to refute my point would have been something along the lines of "Fred was arrested for burglary, and Larry hangs out with him. Larry must be a burglar, too." However, an accurate analogy to what's going on in this case would be "Fred was arrested for burglary, and the day before he was arrested, he gave lots of money to Larry. Nobody thinks Larry did anything wrong." NatusRoma 03:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact that you make the association in the first place does the damage and you well know it, and after all we are talking about a highly suspect unproven allegation here Bachs 03:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok lets try this -

This way Democrats say XXX and Republicans say XXX and both sides facts are presented so the reader can than chose what to believe. I think thats fair.

wait a sec I pasted the wrong thing....

Ok here for a compromise - this way Dems say XXX and Reps say XXX and both sides get their facts out.

Among all members of Congress, Chocola received the sixth largest amount of money from former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's political action committee ARMPAC. In 2005, DeLay was indicted on felony money laundering charges by Ronnie Earle. While DeLay has not been convicted of any crime, and no one has accused the recipients of such campaign funds of misconduct, the indictments have led Democrats to call on Chocola to return the money or to donate it to charity. [1] Republicans say that the charges by Ronnie Earle against DeLay are politically motivated because Earle has a history of indictments against Democrat and Republican political enemies that have failed (see Kay Bailey Hutchison) and it has been widely reported that Earle had to shop the charges to several grand juries because some refused to indict. [2] Republicans also criticized Earle for making a movie called The Big Buy, about his pursuit of DeLay that has been filming since before DeLay was notified of the charges. [3] [4] [5] Bachs 03:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Right now, we're discussing this on about three talk pages at once. Can we move all further discussion to Talk:Chris Chocola, and apply what we come up with there to the other articles? NatusRoma 04:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up! AladdinSE thinks the article is neutral enough to remove its POV template. If you don't agree, you may wish to weigh in at Talk:NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy#NPOV. On missing content, this fragment of In re confounds me, so it didn't make it into the article: "...That is not to say that we should be prepared to jettison Fourth Amendment requirements in the interest of national security. Rather, assuming arguendo that FISA orders are not Fourth Amendment warrants, the question becomes, are the searches constitutionally reasonable." Metarhyme 20:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:2003 Texas redistricting as to why your material was removed. Please do not mark a legitimate removal as "vandalism." Thank you, David Hoag 17:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---David, your removal and whitewashing of the information was not legitimate and was most certainly vandalism, and as you can see, the Supreme Court has upheld exactly the historical precedent that I posted. Bachs

I was dismayed to find that you had reverted all of my most recent edits to the articles on several ARMPAC recipients without any discussion, even though I provided a description on Talk:Chris Chocola about why I thought that my edit made sense. If you feel that my reasoning was faulty, please explain why on that page. Also, in the past, when you reverted my edits, I was happy to see that you were careful to preserve improvements to the given article's style and grammar. More recently, as in the case of your changes to Tom DeLay, that hasn't been the case. I'd appreciate it if you'd again take care only to change the content you disagree with, and to leave grammar be. Thanks, NatusRoma | Talk 08:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---Roma, after a careful review of "your edits" it is clear that you post information that is designed to benefit one side of a partisan argument while you continually edit out the other side, leaving a one sided argument. This meets the definition of vandalism and such partisan edits must be corrected. Bachs

Older/Wiser - I am sure that it is your opinion that you are familiar with the "Examples that are not partisan attacks" section, but your posts indicate that clearly you are not. If you would have read on my talk page and above, I have addressed the good faith section of that section. I will restate it in condensed form here since you have missed it. NatusRoma and I had an agreement on the Armpac language. At first she wanted the DNC talking point view posted and nothing else. After a long argument and constant reverting of her edits to match the DNC talking points. I was finally able to convince her to accept that both sides of the argument and both sides of the facts must be presented. We agreed on a final set of language. But when I went back to the other congressmens web sites I saw that in some places she had reverted the language back to the DNC talking point language against our agreement. Also NatusRoma repeatedly removed a statement and link about Ronnie Earle's persecution of Kay Baily Hutchinson by Time Magazine that I had added to the pile of information on the Tom DeLay entry and the Ronnie Earle entry. Anyone who takes the time to examine her relentless edits on the wiki entries of republicans can only come to one conclusion. Quite frankly, I bent over backwards giving her the benefit of the doubt (as evidenced by our lengthy exchanges above), after a long history of such edits that benefit of the doubt has been all used up. So let me make this clear, there are no personal attacks, I just stated the facts in a direct, Joe Friday style.

By the way Older/wiser, when I made the case that some posts amounted to partisan vandalism or partisan editing I had gone out of my way to make it crystal clear that it was in no way intended to be a personal attack, that it was merely a conclusion I was forced to come to after a long train of evidence was observed. According to the rules that you claim to understand well, you are supposed to give me the benefit of the doubt on my claim and observation that it is in no way intended to be a personal attack. But just to show how good faith I am, I clarified my language and made it even more directed at the alleged partisan posts themselves. Bachs

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]