Talk:John Aimers

message: This page is not for discussion about John Aimers.  It is for discussion about the content of the Wikipedia article about John Aimers.  Please note the difference. 
I have removed all posts that did not pertain to the Wikipedia article including fallacious legal advice. 
It seems that the proper thing to do is to is, quite simply, not to discuss John Aimers.
::With regards to all of the discussions below: the original point is well taken and subsequent comments seem to have missed the point. A statement in the talk page such as "Mr. Smith is/is not a child abuser" is not appropriate. Appropriate is: "It was reported in National Newspaper that Mr. Smith was a child molester, but I feel/do not feel this should be added to the article because ___________"  - Abscissa 05:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Important Note

message: Fine, but the way it was written was pretty biased, and made it seem as though he is guilty of these crimes. Nothing has been proven against Aimers yet. Unfortunately, his reputation is being dragged through the mud. A Wikipedia page should confine itself to the facts. (preceding was posted by an anon IP)
By definition a claim is unproven. Adding "unproven" as an adjective is redundant and belabours the point. Also there was a statement of claim so removing reference to the statement of claim is not an acceptable edit. Lastly, your claims about other schools issuing statements is unsources.Homey 22:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of header: "Important Note"

message: Do we have a source for this "information"? --gbambino 20:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be the little superscript number that comes at the end of the quote. Carolynparrishfan 21:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Therefore any imposter could insert said address.  Unless John himself verifies that he wrote that, there's no evidence that they're actually his words. --gbambino 21:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT rights opposition 

message: Carolynparrishfan, you've provided a link to some comment page, but there's no proof that those are actually John Aimers' words, and not somebody trying to defame him by using his name.  Though it's no verification that they're not his words, knowing the man personally those comments are not typical of his way of communicating, nor are silly spelling errors.  Without proof either way it's best that they're left off the page - they really don't contribute much to the article anyway. --gbambino 21:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Views on homosexuality" 

message: gbambino, what is your source for a1997 police investigation. The Globe & Mail article didn't provide a year. Homey 21:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  police investigation 

message: I'm sorry gbambino but I don't see why the quotation from the statement carried in the Post should not be included given that a direct quotation from the statement is superior as sources go than paraphrasing from a news article that itself paraphrases the statement. Quoting a single line of the statement is not excessive and is a clearer depiction of the allegations than what was in the article previously (ie the reference to "attempting oral sex" does not make it clear that an actual physical assault was alleged as opposed to a suggestion being made). Homey 22:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation from statement 

message: I removed the recent claim from the intro, because it's an untested allegation. Either it shouldn't be in the lead, which is my preference, or else it must be written in a way that makes clear it is an untested claim. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source that says he resigned? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro