Talk:Don Lane (Santa Cruz)

Valentines cards

I am new to this. I have been including reference to his past that is clearly documented and that he freely discusses in other media, though with his own spin on it. I had discussed this in a talk with Mr. Lane's Rep here under my previous IP 67.180.161.221

The Revision has stood for five months with no problems (undo revision) until recently and with no discussion as to why.

Mr Lane refers to this episode and admits to doing it here.

I wish my original revision to stand for it is important for voters to know about it. It explains why Mr. Lane feels that the Press hounded him, while the Press might have had good reason to.

Thank You and Please Advise: The Man of Heart (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I came across this dispute purely by accident, having spotted a usertalk message on another editor's page which was on my watchlist. It seems apparent that the two parties to this dispute are both single-purpose accounts and both have very obvious conflicts of interest in the subject matter - as witnessed in this exchange here. Keri (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The incident referred to took place in 1989 and is described in some detail by Metroactive here. The article says: "...Mo Reich, accountant and newly elected member of the city council, sent a valentine to Steve Hartman, frequent critic of progressives. The card in question included the loving touch of an illustrated upraised middle finger. Hartman, himself a former council candidate who'd not been chosen by voters, strenuously objected, and served recall papers to not only Reich but to three other progressives, Don Lane, Mardi Wormhoudt and Jane Yokoyama. Why those four? Because they had, the previous late spring, voted against sending the Navy the city's longstanding annual letter inviting one of its vessels to dock in Santa Cruz on July Fourth, which Hartman (like many military veterans) took as a personal insult."

Lane and Yokoyama co-signed the card and in contemporary news reports from February, 1989, Lane told reporters: "I committed one act of bad judgment, which I deeply regret and for which I have apologized and continue to apologize for." (Santa Cruz Sentinel, February 26, 1989: pages 1, 4.) The recall failed, and the incident "petered out fairly quickly." However, Reich then sent out another - anonymous - card to the mayor of Scotts Valley, which led to Reich's resignation. It should be noted, the newspaper coverage at the time was about Reich and the 2nd card, mentioning also that a card had been sent - openly - to Hartman. When Lane became mayor again last year, the story about the card resurfaced in at least one source - albeit with the details muddied about who sent which card and which card caused the resignation. The real "scandal" appears to have been the 2nd card, which Lane was not involved with, and Reich's initial public denial that he was responsible. I think that WP:DUE applies here, specifically "...discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." My concerns about WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, WP:COI and WP:SPA also remain. Keri (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a false allegation

Sorry. Since Keri has read and monitored all my correspondence, she knows that I have denied that I am one of the recipients of the Obscene Valentine's Card as seen here. It is the "Rep" of Don Lane (Santa Cruz) who is assuming this. It is patently untrue. The Man of Heart (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

So,can you provide a source? On Wikipedia, saying something doesn't help,as we can't confirm who you are in real life. Clubjustin3 (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

How can I do that? I'm retired, I don't use social media, etc, etc, etc. This is all a maze and convuluted. It seems that only the anointed are allowed to be here. I do not feel welcomed or helped here. I feel that some of you (especially those who have locked this article from editing) don't appreciate a newcomer or believe his point of view. Keri has not once talked to me nor explained what the problem actually is in plain language. It's as if I'm not even in the room.The Man of Heart (talk) 04:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It does not matter what cards you have or have not received. What matters is the article. When I posted at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#I am new and I need help. I am not an expert in this. I was in a hurry and did not notice that the issue had been raised at WP:BLPN#Don Lane (Santa Cruz), and that the article had been fully protected. Having spent a minute looking at the text in question, I can assure you that it will never appear on Wikipedia because this is an encyclopedia, not a place where scores are settled. The issue is trivia and people can post about it on blogs, not here. The policies are WP:BLP and WP:DUE but explanations for these are often missed when people do not have a range of experience of how Wikipedia operates, so I am just outlining the situation. Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Again, there are so many convos about this, some that I'm not notified about, that are happening on this matter hence the growing confusion. Assuming bad faith?? Correction: I do not have a score to settle here. My post was meant to clarify and expand the previous statement as to why Mr. Lane felt hounded by the press, and why the press might have had a good reason to.The Man of Heart (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Don Lane (Santa Cruz). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150530224505/https://www.scmtd.com/en/agency-info/board-of-directors/introducing-the-board to https://www.scmtd.com/en/agency-info/board-of-directors/introducing-the-board

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)