`  ::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  `