Talk:Tom Ammiano

message: Is it correct to say that the Sisters of Perpetual indulgence "mock" the Catholic Church, rather than "are critical of" the Church? I think "mock" fits their activity very well. Why pussyfoot around? Griot 06:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence

message: The above content, although probably true, was removed for copyright violation. Consider reworking and rewording anything appropriate back into the article. Banjeboi 00:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  content removed 

message: Unfortunately, the page says Ammiano was muttering ”Kiss my gay ass”, whereas in videos such as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyVLwRvA9BE he can be clearly heard shouting ”Kiss my faggot ass”. Now, Ammiano’s official version is that he said ”gay” and it seems US political decorum requires that everyone respect this ... even when we can all see for ourselves that it’s not true. I suppose no ”reputable source” will report the real wording, so we can’t report it on Wikipedia either, as it would be ”original research”. So are we stuck with reporting a factual error, even though we all know it’s a factual error?
:Yes, find a reliable source that shows your version otherwise it remains.  -- Banjeboi 00:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ”Kiss my gay/faggot ass” 

message: What is the best section title for the section concerning Schwarzenegger's veto message which acrostically says "I Fuck You"?
Comments previously is that "I Fuck You" is vulgar. Wikipedia doesn't censor. The issue was the message "I Fuck You" rather than the memo itself. And that controversy is a word we try to avoid and isn't appropriate here. 
:Previous headings up to now have been:
* Schwarzenegger "I Fuck You" veto memo
* Schwarzenegger letter controversy
* Schwarzenegger "I Fuck You" acrostic message
* Schwarzenegger memo controversy
Any help appreciated to come to the best decision.  -- Banjeboi 20:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to "Schwarzenegger acrostic memo".  I don't think it accomplishes anything useful to put the word "fuck" in the heading.  It is fine to put it in the paragraph. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fuck is already in the paragraph, it's the only reason the content is even there. Likewise the issue isn't that there was a memo but that it spelled "I Fuck You" which is surprisingly offensive for any elected official to do.  -- Banjeboi 00:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO,"Schwarzenegger letter controversy" would be the best section title. It would accurately describe the content, and avoid controversy. The word in question is already in the section, so there is little need to state it again. If anyone is curious, they can simply scroll down. I am 100 against censorship, the reason I bring forth this suggestion is that I believe this would help cool off some of the controversy surrounding the section title, and, as you said, controversy is a word we try to avoid. MMS2013 02:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I live in California and saw some of the press coverage of that thing when it happened.  I'm not convinced there was a controversy.  It was treated as more of a "news of the weird" item, or at any rate, as after-the-fact reporting.  There was some pro forma posturing on both sides, but the underlying situation (that there is a lot of rancor in the state capital) was transparent, and was not exactly news. 67.117.145.149 (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

text: It's only vague when there are plentora veto messages to mix up, and there aren't. Hekerui (talk) 08:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

text: That's a rather uncommon word, so I'm not so positive on that. Hekerui (talk) 08:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's wikilinked in the text though, then a reader can sort it out, if the current content doesn't give them enough context.  -- Banjeboi 16:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Title for the section concerning Schwarzenegger veto message