Well,on one hand, it's ok for Duckworth to call Peter a liar and its not ok for Mr. Roskam response not to see the light of day on Wikipedia?

It would seem to be a matter of fair play and common sense, and with precedent being set on the Ms. Tammy Duckworth Wikipedia Article, (The Duckworth article which you two ( , ) lovingly protect from absolutly any "negative" insertions and damaging Cruft.) so I invoke this little bit of policy WP:SENSE.

BTW, it's funny there is no such listing of Duckworth's more notable campaign contributors like BABS and Baldwin (It was Baldwin who wanted to hurt [ Mr. Hyde, during the Clinton enpeachment trials] There were a "LOT" of people here, in the 6th, that didn't "cotton" to well to Mr Baldwin and would not cotton to Tammy's outsider friends very well if such information became more "public knowlege" of the contributions made by Mr Baldwin and his east and west coast "limo librals", which are the lions share of Duckworth contributions and are "TOTAL OUTSIDERS" to the 6th as well as Duckworth too. 

It is this, as well as the general tone of Duckworth article, which reads like a "STORY" or Campaign Tract and in light of this, as well as being armed with precedents that you two "good faith" editors ,  have set, I will "lovingly" protect Roskams article in the same "Loving way" as you two protect the [ Duckworth article] , and as per this policy WP:SENSE or in other words.  Whats fair is fair, whats good for the Duckworth article, is good for the Roskam article. Common sense rulez. Do zobaczenia